Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/99/2016

Lalit Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

SH. Navjot SIngh Sidhu

26 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                 Consumer Complaint No.99 of 2016

                                                                                                                                       Date of institution:  14.10.2016                                                                                                                                                                     Date of decision   :  26.05.2017

Lalit Gupta son of Narain Dass R/o House No.131, W No.7, Opposite Krishna Medical, Sirhind Mandi, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., B-1, Sector 81, Phase 2, Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh through its authorized signatory.
2. Techno Solutions, Ward No.17, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its authorized signatory(Authorized Service Centre of Samsung Mobiles).
3. Puri Telecom, Near over Bridge, Bassi Road, Sirhind Mandi, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, through its authorized signatory.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

                                    Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                        

                             Sh. Inder Jit, Member

   

Present :           Sh.N.S.Sidhu, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.          

                        Sh.G.S.Nagra,counsel for OP No.1.                        

                         Opposite parties No. 2& 3 ex-parte.

 

ORDER

Inder Jit, Member

                   Complainant Lalit Gupta son of Narain Dass R/o House No.131, W No.7, Opposite Krishna Medical, Sirhind Mandi, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                The complainant purchased Samsung J7 mobile phone from OP No.3, vide invoice No.2316 dated 19.10.2015 for Rs.14,300/-. At the time of purchase of the said mobile hand set OP No.3 gave guarantee/warranty of one year against any defect in the said mobile hand set. He also assured that he would return the amount of said mobile hand set along with interest if lateron the mobile hand set is found to be defective. After few weeks of purchasing the said mobile hand set, the same started giving some problems, initially the problems were minor, therefore, he did not bother to lodge complaint to the OPs. But, when there arose major problems in the said mobile hand set like auto switch off, hanging and slow processing, over heating, fail to wake up, sometime automatic reboot, sensor problem, then the complainant approached OP No.2 on 12.10.2016 for getting his mobile hand set duly repair. OP No.2 after checking the mobile in question retained the mobile with it for repair and issued a job sheet.  As per assurance of OP No.2, the complainant along with his friend again visited OP No.2 after some hours for getting his duly repaired mobile. Then OP No.2 asked the complainant to give back the original job sheet after signing the same along with other form. The complainant signed both i.e. job sheet and form "under protest" and handed over the same to OP No.2. No photocopy of these documents was given to the complainant. Mobile hand set was handed over to the complainant, which was found to be having the same problem, when put to use within the premises of OP No.2. OP No.2, when informed, refused to recheck the hand set and told the complainant that there seems to be manufacturing defect in it. Warranty period of the said mobile hand set was also going to expire soon. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Under these circumstances, the complainant was left with no option but to file a consumer complaint. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to OPs to give new mobile hand set or to refund the cost of the mobile, as also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for un-necessary harassment, mental agony and monetary loss suffered by the complainant and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs. But OPs No. 2 & 3 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OPs no. 2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte.

4.                The complaint is contested by OP No.1. In reply to the complaint OP No.1 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as he has concealed the material and true facts from this Forum; the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties; the present complaint is gross abuse of the process of law and is totally false, frivolous and baseless. As regards the fact of the complaint, OP No.1 stated that the complainant has till date got his handset repaired only once on 12.10.2016 i.e. after more than 11 months from date of purchase i.e. 19.10.2015, with regard to hang, heat up and auto switch off, which was duly rectified by the OP No.2 without any charges and to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant never visited any service centre of OP No.1 with any kind of problem in his handset. This shows that the handset of the complainant was perfectly working. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 or its service centre.  After denying the other averments made in complaint, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence copy of bill Ex. C-1, copy of job sheet Ex. C-2, copy of job card receipt Ex. C-3, his affidavit Ex. C-4, affidavit of Ankit Singla Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Anindya Bose Ex. OP1/1, true copy of specimen of warranty card Ex. OP1/2 and closed the evidence.

6.                The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that complainant had several times visited OP No.1 for repair of the said mobile hand set but it refused to repair/replace the mobile though it was within warrantee period. The Ld. counsel submitted that the said model of the mobile in question is having manufacturing defect/technical defect and hence, causing trouble to other users also. The Ld. counsel pleaded for giving direction to the OPs to refund the price of mobile hand set or to replace the same with new one of any model but of same value along with compensation for harassment and mental pain.

7.                On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that complainant has till date got his handset repaired only once on 12.10.2016 i.e. after more than 11 months from date of purchase i.e. 19.10.2015, with regard to hang, heat up and auto switch off, which was duly rectified by the OP No.2 without any charges and to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant never visited any service centre of OP No.1 with any kind of problem in his handset, thus  OP No.1 cannot be held liable for deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint

8.                We heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings and evidence placed on record by the parties. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the mobile hand set on 19.10.2015 and visited the service centre of OP No.1 on 12.10.2016 for getting it repaired for the defects mentioned in the job sheet. Thereafter he has stated vide his affidavit Ex. C-4 alongwith affidavit of Ankit Singla Ex. C-5 that despite repeated visits the service centre of OP No.1 could not remove the defects of overheating and automatically switch on off problem in the mobile hand set. Nothing has been placed on record by the OPs in order to rebut the contention of the complainant.

9.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find force in the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the complainant. Hence, we direct the OPs to replace the said mobile hand set model with some other model of same value, as it is established that the particular model of mobile is having the technical defect, which is being faced by the other users also. In case no other model of same value is available then to refund the value as mentioned in the bill Ex. C-1. We further find complainant is entitled to compensation on account of mental harassment and litigation costs. A lumpsum amount of Rs.5000/- be paid to the complainant by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The complaint stand accepted.

10.               The arguments on the complaint were heard on 19.05.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced                                                                

                           Dated:26.05.2017                                                                  (A.P.S.Rajput)      

                                                                                                                           President

 

                     (Inder Jit)      

                         Member