Punjab

Sangrur

CC/875/2015

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sanjeev Garg

09 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                    

                                                Complaint No.  875

                                                Instituted on:    25.08.2015

                                                Decided on:       09.06.2016

 

Rakesh Kumar son of Shri Santosh Kumar, resident of Street No.5, Thalesh Bagh Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, B-1, Sector 81, Phase-2, Noida, District Gautam Budha Naar (UP) through its Managing Director.

2.             M/s. Gaurav Communication, Gaushalla Road, Near Railway Chowk, School Wali Gali, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

3.             S.R.Sales, Opposite Jyoti Sarup Gurudwara, Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Sanjeev Garg, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Shri  J.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OP No.2&3         :               Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Rakesh Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Samsung SM-G360 HZWD-Y mobile set from OP number 3  for Rs.9490/- vide invoice number RI-939 dated 11.12.2014 with one year warranty of the mobile set against any manufacturing defect or poor workmanship. It is further averred in the complaint that on 09.06.2015, the complainant was shocked to see that the voice of the mobile set started to fluctuate during the incoming and outgoing calls, while talking and not showing the tower signal and automatically disconnection due to network problem, as such, the complainant immediately approached OP number 3 for rectification the said defect of the mobile and requested  OP number 3 to rectify the defect, as such after checking the mobile set by OP number 3, advised the complainant to approach OP number 2 i.e. authorised service centre of the OP number 1. Thereafter the complainant approached OP number 2, who issued a job sheet and asked the complainant to get the mobile set after 2/3 days. It is further averred that thereafter on 15.6.2015, the complainant again approached OP number 2 and requested to hand over the mobile set, but the OP number 2 returned the mobile set without any repairs.  Further case of the complainant is that on 20.6.2015, the complainant again approached OP number 2 and handed over his mobile set to OP number 2 for replacement, then the OP number 2 told the complainant to come after 2/3 days and issued a job sheet in this regard. The complainant approached OP number 2 on 23.6.2015, again the OP number 2 returned the mobile set to the complainant without any repairs. It is further averred that the mobile set in question requires to be replaced with a new one as it suffers from manufacturing defects. It is further averred that the OP number 2 also sent a request bearing number 4197829402 dated 16.7.2015 to the OP number 1 for replacement of the mobile set , but all in vain.  It is further averred that the complainant on 1.7.2015 got checked the mobile set from Binny Telecom, Court Road, Sangrur, who told that the mobile set suffers from manufacturing defects which is beyond repairs.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund him the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.9490/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OPs number 2 and 3 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 2 and 3 were  proceeded exparte on 23.10.2015.

 

3.             In the reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as the mobile set was last submitted with the OP number 2 on 15.7.2015 with the problem of ‘incoming voice issue’  and on inspection of the same, minor problem was found and hand set was duly rectified, that the performance of the mobile set depends upon the physical handling of the product,  that the complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence, that the complainant has sought refund or replacement of the mobile, which is not permissible under the law and also under the terms and conditions of the warranty and that the complainant has never approached the authorised service centre with any kind of problem.    On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP number 3 vide bill dated 11.12.2014 for Rs.9490/-.  It has been denied that the mobile set in question started to give problems on 09.06.2015 and there was problem of fluctuating of voice during the incoming and outgoing calls. It has been denied that the OP number 2 sent any request dated 16.7.2015 to Op number 1  for replacement of mobile set in question. It is denied that the mobile set in question is beyond repairs.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 expert report, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 affidavits, Ex.C-4 copy of invoice, Ex.C-5 copy of job sheet dated 9.6.2015, Ex.C-6 copy of card of job sheet, Ex.C-7 copy of job sheet dated 20.6.2015, Ex.C-8 copy of warranty card, Ex.C-9 copy of authorisation certificate and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1  and Ex.OP1/2 affidavits, Ex.OP1/3 copy of expert report dated 12.5.2016 and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-4 is the copy of the invoice dated 11.12.2014 issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.9490/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 3, which has been manufactured by OP number 1.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant became defective on 09.06.2015 with the problem ‘incoming voice not clear, network problem’, as is evident from the copy of job card sheet EX.C-5, whereas the OP number 1 has denied that the complainant never approached OP number 2 on 09.06.2015, which averment of the OP number 1 falsifies from the document Ex.C-5. Again Ex.C-7 is the copy of job order sheet dated 20.6.2015 issued by the OP number 2 with the sim incoming problem, which again falsifies the stand of the OP number 1 that the complainant never approached OP number 2.  Further it is an admitted fact of the Ops that the mobile set in question was having one year warranty against any of the defects.  It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 2 chose to chose exparte and even did not appear to deny this allegation of the complainant that he visited it on various dates. Further the complainant has also produced his own sworn affidavit and the report of expert Shri Rohit Narang Ex.C-1 to support his averments, wherein it is clearly stated that he checked the mobile set on 1.7.2015 and there was a problem of voice fluctuating during the incoming and outgoing calls while talking and not showing the tower signal and automatically disconnection of the calls due to network problem and the report is further supported by the affidavit Ex.C-2 of Shri Rohit Narang.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has also produced the report of Shri Harpreet Dass, Service Engineer of the OP number 2, Ex.OP1/3 and his affidavit Ex.OP1/2 wherein he has stated that he received the mobile set in question for  checking and submitted the report dated 12.5.2016. We may mention tht it is obvious that the engineer of the OPs will give the report in their favour, as such, his report is not at all helpful to the case of the OPs. Further perusal of the record reveals that the learned counsel for the complainant handed over the mobile set in question to Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv. for OP number 1 in the Forum on 18.03.2016 for checking, but the same was never returned to the complainant or his counsel even after checking of the same.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not return the mobile set in question to the complainant and kept the same with them without any reason.    In the circumstances, it is clear that the mobile set in question supplied to the complainant is defective one which is beyond repairs.     As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.9490/- being the cost of the mobile set along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 25.8.2015 till realisation.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.2500/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 9, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member