Punjab

Sangrur

CC/698/2015

Manpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Grewal

11 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                 

                                                Complaint No.  698

                                                Instituted on:    22.07.2015

                                                Decided on:       11.05.2016

 

Manpreet Singh son of Ram Lal, resident of Village Fatehgarh, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

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

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

3.             Malik Electronics, Chowk Kotwali Bazar, Ambala City through its Proprietor.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri K.S.Toor, 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 Manpreet Singh, 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 E-7 (Dual Sim) bearing IMEI number 358185/06/2035/93/3 for Rs.19,900/- vide invoice number 26805 dated 14.03.2015 from OP number 3, which was having one year warranty/guarantee. It is further averred in the complaint that on 16.7.2015, the complainant was shocked to see when the mobile set auto switched off and display of the mobile set became blank, as such, he immediately approached OP number 2 to rectify the defects therein and the OP number 2 after checking the mobile set told the complainant to come after 2/3 days and issued a job sheet to the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant approached OP number 2 after four days and requested to deliver the mobile, but all in vain and the problem was still there.  As such, the complainant requested the Op number 2 to either replace the screen and to make it in working order or in the alternative to replace the defective mobile set with a new one, as the same was under the warranty period, but nothing was done.  As such, 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.19,900/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 2 and 3 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 2 and 3 were  proceeded exparte on 08.09.2015.

 

3.             In the reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint of the complainant is baseless, devoid of any merits whatsoever and without any cause of action, that the Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint,  that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that  there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question, as such the same should be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP number 3. Further it is admitted that a complaint with respect to the problems of blank display arising the mobile phone was registered in the office of OP number 2 on 25.5.2015 against job sheet number 4194834763 by the complainant and all the defects were duly rectified by the qualified service engineer of the OP number 2 by replacing the LCD screen and the mobile phone was handed over to the complainant in the working condition to his full satisfaction. It is further stated that again a complaint with respect to the problems of broken display was registered with the OP number 2 on 17.7.2015 against job sheet number 4197902855 by the complainant and after checking the mobile set, it was found that there was liquid ingression inside the display and usually the repair was not possible under the warranty terms and conditions without the payment of fee, however, as a goodwill gesture the OP number 2 offered for free repair of the mobile phone of the complainant, but the complainant did not agree to the call of the service centre and is adamant on replacement, which is not possible under the warranty terms and conditions.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of expert report dated 21.7.2015, Ex.C-3 copy of bill dated 14.3.2015, Ex.C-4 copy of job card dated 17.7.2015, Ex.C-5 affidavit, Ex.C-6 copy of expert report, Ex.C-7 copy of 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 27.4.2016 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-3 is the copy of the invoice dated 14.03.2015 issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.19,900/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 3.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant became defective as there was auto switch off and display problem and as such the complainant approached the OP number 2 on 16.7.2015, but the problems in the mobile set could not be removed permanently. It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 2 replaced the LCD of the mobile set as mentioned in the reply filed by OP number  3. It is further in the reply that thereafter the complainant again approached the OP number 2 on 17.7.2015 with the broken display.  In the present case, the OP number 2 and 3 remained to chose exparte and even did not appear to deny the allegations of the complainant levelled in the complaint. Further the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex.C-1 to support his contention.  Further the complainant has relied upon the report dated 21.7.2015 of expert Shri Damanjit Singh, Ex.C-3 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the mobile set in question is suffering from the manufacturing defects due to that there is problem of auto switch off and blank screen problems and the defect in the mobile set is said to be not curable.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has also produced the report of Harpreet Dass, Service Engineer of the OP number 2 Ex.OP1/3 and his affidavit Ex.OP1/2 wherein he has stated that he checked the mobile set and found that “in case of any damage to the product over misuse defect by the authorised service centre, personnel the warranty conditions are not applicable and repair will be done subject to availability of the parts and on chargeable basis only” and that there is no manufacturing defect. It is worth mentioning here that in the report as well as in the affidavit Ex.OP1/3 and Ex.OP1/2, it is not specifically mentioned that on what date and time he checked the mobile set in question. As such, we feel that the expert report as well as the affidavit of Shri Harpreet Dass are not at all helpful to the case of the OPs and it seems that the affidavit as well as the expert report have been prepared in very casual manner. It is worth mentioning here that the Op number 1 has alleged in the reply as well as in the affidavit that when the complainant approached on 17.7.2015, the display was in broken condition, but on the other hand the complainant has not uttered even a single word to deny this allegation.  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 number 1 and 2 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.19,900/- being the cost of the mobile set, however, subject to the returning of the mobile set in question (with perfect/smooth display) along with all the accessories  to the Ops number 1 and 2 at the time of receiving the payment of the mobile set.  The OPs number 1 and 2 shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment as well as  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.

                May 11, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member