Punjab

Sangrur

CC/284/2015

Rajinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Shergill

20 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    284

                                                Instituted on:      05.05.2015

                                                Decided on:       20.10.2015

 

 

 

Rajinder Kumar aged about 35 years son of Shri Ramesh Kumar Bansal, resident of Outside Patiala Gate, Sohian Road, Indra Colony, Street No.1, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

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

2.             M/s. Gaurav Communication, Opposite PWD Rest House, Railway Chowk, Sangrur through its proprietor.

3.             Sharma Mobile Gallery, #80, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               Shri G.S.Shergill, 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 Rajinder 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 Galaxy Core II mobile from OP number 3 on 23.10.2014 bearing IMEI number 354797/06/426135/0 and IMEI number 354798/06/426135/8 for Rs.8000/- against invoice number 81 dated 23.10.2014 which was having one year warranty against any defect arises therein due to manufacturing or poor workmanship.  It is further averred that in the month of April, 2015, the display of the said mobile started to create problem as the screen of the mobile set was not showing anything, as such, on 20.4.2015 the complainant immediately approached OP number 3 for removing the defect, who advised the complainant to approach OP number 2.  As such, the complainant approached OP number 2, who after checking told that there is the display problem, which cannot be repaired and the same requires replacement. The complainant told the OP number 2 that the mobile set is under warranty period of one year and requested to replace the same free of charge, but he refused to do so.  When the complainant asked him to give it in writing, then he refused to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund to the complainant the purchase price of the above said mobile set i.e. Rs.8000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that Ops number 2 and 3 did not appear despite service, as such Ops number 2 and 3 were proceeded exparte on 18.06.2015.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OPs into uncalled litigation, the complainant has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands.  That this Forum  has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint.  It is stated that the performance of the mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product apart from compatibility of downloaded mobile applications and games.  It is stated further 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.  It is stated further that in the absence of any expert evidence, the claim cannot be allowed.   On merits, the sale and purchase of the mobile set in question has been admitted. However, it is stated that the warranty was given as per manufacture service manual.  It has been denied for want of knowledge that in the month of April, 2015 display of the mobile set started to create problem as the screen of the mobile is not showing anything. It is also denied that the complainant approached OP number 3 on 20.4.2015.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of bill, Ex.C-2 copy of expert report, Ex.C-3 copy of certificate, Ex.C-4 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit of Sunil Bhargava, Ex.OP1/2 affidavit of Kulwant Singh, Ex.OP1/3 copy of report dated 7.10.2015 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-1 is a copy of the bill dated 23.10.2014 issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.8,000/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 3. It is also admitted fact of the OP number 1 that the complainant approached him and he got the mobile set in question repaired from the service centre of OPs at Sangrur.  In the present case, the case of the complainant is that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant started to create problem as the screen of the mobile set was not showing anything, whereas the mobile set was under the warranty period.  Further to support his contention, the complainant has also produced on record the report dated 01.05.2015 issued by Shri Kamalpreet Singh of Kamal Communication, wherein it has been clearly stated that on 1.5.2015, he checked the mobile set in question and after checking the same found that there was screen problem of the mobile set and it was not showing anything when even the mobile set was in on condition.  Further to support his expert report, Shri Kamalpreet Singh has also filed his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-4 and certificate issued by Royal Institute of Electonic Engineering, Ex.C-3.  We may mention that the Ops number 2 and 3 remain to chose exparte and it is the only OP number 1, who has come forward to defend his case. The learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced on record the report of Shri Kulwant Singh, Service Engineer of M/s. Gaurav Communication, Ex.OP1/3, wherein it is stated that he checked the mobile set on 23.9.2015 and found that the display of the mobile set is in damaged condition and in case of any damage to the product/misuse detected by the authorized service centre, the OP number 1 is not at all liable.     But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for OP number 1 that Shri Kulwant Singh being an employee of the OP number 2, M/s. Gaurav Communications, Sangrur (who is an authorised service centre of OP number 1) will support the OP number 1 and such, the report of Shri Kulwant Singh is not at all helpful to the case of the Ops.  The Hon’ble Punjab State Commission in Shaminder Pal Singh versus Samsung India Electronics and others, First Appeal No.311 of 2012, decided on 17.1.2013, has held in para number 10 that “The report Ex.C-3 given by Kamalpreet Singh makes it clear that the Mobile set was examined on 5.7.2011 was found to be having problem in it.  As against it is the opinion Ex.R-4 of Sukhdeep Sharma, who has submitted his affidavit Ex.R-3.  The testimony of Sukhdeep Sharma has been challenged by the complainant on the ground that he is an employee of Gaurav Communication, OP/respondent number 2 being a paid employee he would support the contention of OP/respondent number 2. We find sufficient merit in the argument because Sukhdeep Sharma is not an independent person whose report could be given credence as was done by the learned District Forum.”  As in the present case, the position is the same, the affidavit and report has been filed by one Kulwant Singh, who is admittedly the paid employee of M/s. Gaurav Communications, OP number 2, as such, the affidavit as well as report of Shri Kuwlant Singh, Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP/3, respectively, are not helpful to the case of the OPs.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that it is a case of supply of defective mobile set to the complainant, which cannot be repaired.   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 and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,000/- being the cost of the mobile set in question, subject to returning of the mobile set in question along with all the accessories thereof by the complainant to OPs number 1 and 2.  OPs number 1 and 2 shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- in lieu 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.

                August 24, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member