Punjab

Sangrur

CC/78/2016

Munish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ashish Grover

01 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 78                                                                                           

                                                                   Instituted on:   07.01.2016                                                                                   

                                                                   Decided on:    01.09.2016

 

Munish Kumar Bansal son of Sh. Narinder Kumar Bansal, resident of H.No.11/491, New Partap Nagar, Sangrur.     

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.   Samsung India Electronic Limited, 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. S.R. Sales Opposite  Jyoti Sarup Gurudwara, Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ partner.

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Ashish Grover,  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1          :      Shri  J.S.Sahni,  Advocate                         

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.2&3     :       Exparte.

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C. Sharma, Member

     

 

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Munish Kumar Bansal, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Samsung mobile bearing Model SM-E700HZKD-Black from OP No.3 for Rs.19400/- vide invoice no. RI-219 dated 17.06.2015 under one year warranty.   In the month of August 2015,  the mobile set in question started creating network problem for which the complainant approached the OP No.3 who advised to approach the OP No.2. Then the complainant approached OP No.2  who told that there is software problem and  after installation of software  the OP no.2 handed over the mobile phone to the complainant. In the month of October 2015, the said phone again started giving same problem and problem of hanging . Again after installing the software the set was returned to the complainant. In the month of December 2015, said mobile phone again gave problems of network, hanging and switch off and OP No.2 issued a job sheet dated 23.12.2015. Thereafter the complainant went to the OP no.2 but OP no.2 said that the defect is manufacturing defect and is not curable. Thereafter the complainant requested the OP No.2 to replace the defective mobile set with new one but they did not do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to refund Rs.19400/-  as price of the cell phone along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OPs no.2 and 3 did not appear and as such OPs no.2 and 3 were proceeded exparte on 09.03.2016. The OP No.1 had appeared through Shri J.S.Sahni Advocate  and filed reply.

3.             In reply filed by OP No.1, preliminary objections on the grounds of concealment of true facts, territorial jurisdiction, abuse of process of law, cause of action and misuse of process of law have been taken up. On merits, purchase of mobile set in question under one year warranty subject to warranty terms and conditions is admitted.  It is submitted that as per the facts pleaded by the complainant the handset has allegedly been purchased on 17.06.2015 and till date he has visited authorized service centre OP No.2 only once with problem of " Network"  which was a software problem which was duly rectified by updating the software of the handset.  Thereafter the complainant never approached the OP No.2. The complainant was satisfied with the working of handset. It is further submitted that the complainant has neither alleged any specific irrepairable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated  report of expert. The expert opinion produced by the complainant  does not explain, specify or mention what kind of manufacturing defect  in the mobile set in question and why it is not curable.  It is  also submitted that the complainant has never visited the OP no.2 in the month of August 2015 and  October 2015, therefore the question of issue of any job sheet does not arise.  It is denied that the OP no.2 told that the defect in the mobile set  is manufacturing defect or is not curable. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.               

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP No.1 has tendered documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 and closed evidence.   

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.1, we find that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone of Samsung  company from OP No.3 on 17.06.2015 for an amount of Rs.19400/- under warranty of one year which is evident from  retail invoice number RI-219 dated 17.06.2015 which is Ex.C-2 on record. The complainant has  stated that in the month of August  2015, the said mobile phone started giving problem of  network for which the complainant approached the OPs  and they after installing software returned the same to the complainant but no job sheet was issued to the complainant and in the month of October 2015 same problem was occurred and Ops after installing the software returned the same to the complainant but no job sheet was given to him. Again in the month of December  2015, the said mobile phone started giving problems of  network, hanging and auto switch off and OP no.2 issued job sheet dated 23.12.2015 but this time the OP No.2 told  the complainant that  there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set.   

6.             To prove his version, the complainant has produced on record copy of retail invoice Ex.C-2 and copy of job sheet Ex.C-2 and  Ex.C-3. The complainant has also produced report of an expert namely Damanjit Singh Ex.C-4 along with his affidavit Ex.C-5  wherein  he has opined that  he found that there is manufacturing defect and due to that reason the problem of network, hanging  and auto switch off occurred which is not curable.

7.             Against the report of expert of the complainant, the OPs has  also produced report of an expert namely Kulwant Singh, Service Engineer working with M/s Guarav Communication Gaushala Road, Sangrur, OP no.2  wherein he  has stated that  problem of network which was duly rectified and update the software and set was handed over to the complainant in OK condition. Learned counsel for the complainant has  argued that Kulwant Singh is working with M/s Gaurav Communication and being a paid employee  he would support  the contention of M/s Gaurav Communication. We find merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant because Mr. Kulwant Singh is not an independent person. In support of his contention learned counsel for the complainant has produced copy of judgment of the  Hon'ble State Consumer Commission Punjab, titled as  Shaminder Pal Singh Vs. Samsung India & another, First Appeal No.311 of 2012,  decided on 17.01.2013. The OPs no. 2&3 did not appear to contest the case of the complainant rather they remain exparte. As such evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted.

8.             For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable  to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same model or in the alternative to refund an                                                                                                                                                      amount Rs.19400/- which is price amount of the mobile set in dispute  to the complainant subject to return of the defective mobile set in question along with all accessories of it . We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.2000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and  litigation expenses.

9.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                September 1, 2016

 

 

 

          ( K.C.Sharma)                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                        

            Member                                     President