Punjab

Sangrur

CC/369/2016

Nitesh Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Saurav Garg

10 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                          

                                                Complaint No.  369

                                                Instituted on:    02.05.2016

                                                Decided on:       10.11.2016

 

Nitesh Goyal son of Shri Surishat Kumar Goyal, resident of House No.606, Street No.6, Mubarak Mehal Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurugram (Gurgaon)-122 002.

2.             Gaurav Communications, Street No.2, Near Railway Chowk, Gaushala Road, Sangrur.

3.             Chhabra Communication, Opposite Bus Stand, Sangrur 148 001.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Saurav Garg, Adv.

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

For OPs No.2&3       :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                  Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Nitesh Goyal, 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 Galaxy Tab 4 having number 35197/07/023949/2 for Rs.13,500/- vide invoice number 3271 dated 27.08.2015 from OP number 3, which was having one year warranty/guarantee. It is further averred that after a few months of its purchase, the tab set started to give problems in the head phone jack of the tab in question, as such, the complainant approached OP number 2 and the OP number 2 told that there is a manufacturing defect in the tab and stated that mother board of the tab needs to be replaced and as such also issued job card number 4209056006 dated 8.2.2016 and thereafter returned the same after one week.  Further case of the complainant is that the tab in question started to give same problem after a  few days and started hanging/heating   whenever it was used. The complainant again approached OP number 2 who again told that the mother board is required to be replaced and kept the tab for replacing of the mother board and issued job card number 4212238447 dated 11.4.2016 and returned the same after repairs.   It is further stated that the tab was not properly repaired by the OP and some bubbles started popping up on the screen of the tab and as such he again approached on 12.4.2016 and brought the problem in the notice of the OP number 2 and OP number 2 at that time again kept the tab with it and asked the complainant to collect it after repairs on tomorrow and when the complainant asked for the job sheet, then Op number 2 stated that there is no need of the same.  It is further stated that on the next day the tab in question was returned to the complainant, but the defects were therein and the tab in question started heating up, as such the complainant again approached the Op number 2, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the tab in question with a new one or in the alternative to refund him the purchase price of the tab i.e. Rs.13,500/- 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.

 

3.             In the reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the Forum as he has concealed the true and material facts. It is further stated that the complainant purchased the tab set on 27.8.2015 and it was submitted with the OP number 2 for the first time on 8.2.2016 after six months of its purchased with the reported problem of ‘handset dead’ and the OP number 2 checked the handset and found that mother board of the hand set has been damaged due to the negligence of the complainant, however, the problems in the tab set were duly rectified by Op number 2 to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant submitted the tab with OP number 2 on 11.4.2016 with the problem of hanging and heating which was also duly rectified, but the complainant has filed the present complaint with ulterior motive and by concealing the material facts.  The tab set in question is perfectly working and is being used by the complainant. It is further stated 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.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the tab in question from OP number 3 for Rs.13,500/- vide bill number 3271 dated 27.8.2015 with warranty of one year as mentioned in the card. However, it is stated that the tab in question has been repaired free of cost. It is admitted that the complainant submitted the tab on 11.4.2016 and it was duly checked and defects were duly rectified and returned to the complainant.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, the OP number 1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill dated 27.8.2015, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 copy of job cards, Ex.C-5 copy of expert report and Ex.C-6 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced  Ex.OP1/1 affidavit along with Annexure R-1, Ex.OP1/2 expert report and Ex.OP1/3 affidavit of Kulwant Singh 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-2 is the copy of the invoice dated 27.08.2015 issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the Samsung Tab 4 in question for Rs.13,500/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the tab and availed the services of the OP number 3.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant that the tab in question purchased by the complainant became defective as there was the problem in the mother board of the tab in question, which has been duly admitted by OP number 1 in its reply. But, again the problems such as heating and hanging of the tab in question arose in the tab set in question even during the warranty period, as such, the OP number 2 issued job sheets Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, copies of which are also on record, which clearly shocks that the set hanged and heated up. It is an admitted fact that the tab in question was repaired by OP number 2, but despite that the same did not work.  In the present case, the OP number 2 and 3 choose to remain 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.  The learned counsel for OP number 1 has also produced only an affidavit of Anindya Bose, Deputy General Manager and no other documentary evidence has been produced on the file to show that the tab set in question was not having the manufacturing problems in the tab set. It is worth mentioning here that though both the parties that is the complainant and OP number 1 has produced their respective expert reports and affidavits, but we are unable to go with any one of them, as the report produced by the Op number 1 is of their own engineer, meaning thereby obviously he will give the report favouring the OP number 1 being its employee.   In the circumstances, it is clear that the tab set in question supplied to the complainant is defective one which is beyond repairs.      Reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh State Commission in Krishna Kumar Sahu versus Manager, Jai Shri Electronics and others 2010(1) CPR 149, wherein the complainant alleged defects in the mobile set, as the defects arose in the mobile set during the warranty period and was not repaired within a reasonable time, it was held to be  a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It has been further held that the OPs were under obligation to fix such defects within a reasonable time, as such, the Hon'ble Commission ordered the refund of the amount to the complainant.  So, similar is the position in the present case, as the OP number 1 and 2 neither repaired the tab set in question nor replaced the same nor made the refund of the amount of the cost  of the  tab set,  as such, it is 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.13,500/- being the cost of the tab set along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 02.05.2016 till realisation, however, after receiving the old tab set in question along with all its accessories under proper receipt from the complainant.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, harassment and 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.

                November 10, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                       

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member