Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/138

Ramesh Kumar Mehta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Chaman Deepl Mittal

24 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

Complaint No. CC/15/138 of 08/07/2015

Decided on 24/12/2015

 

Ramesh Kumar Mehta son of Late Sh. Shiv Sharan Dass Mehta, Resident of 24-G, Majithia Enclave, Near Park no.2, Patiala.

….Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, Head Office 2,3, 4 floors Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Sector 43 Gurgaon- 122002 (Haryana).

2. Xpert Communication, Sheran Wala Gate, Patiala (Authorized Service Centre).

3. A-One Communication, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala through its Prop./ Partner.

….Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM

Sh. D. R. Arora, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member

 

Present:

For Complainant : Sh. Chamandeep S. Mittal Advocate

For Opposite party no.1 : Sh. J. S. Sandhu Advocate

For Opposite party no.2 : Ex-parte.

 

ORDER

D. R. ARORA, PRESIDENT:

1. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased mobile hand set make Samsung Galaxy S-Duos-3 on 25/10/2014 for Rs.7350/- from OP no.3. In the 4th week of February 2015 the mobile hand set started giving the problem in its microphone as also the software and therefore he visited OP no.2 on 26/2/2015, the service centre of the manufacturer of the mobile hand set vide registration slip no.4190200233 and who after having repaired the microphone and updated the software returned the same to him.

2. Again in the month of May 2015, the mobile hand set started giving the same problem and therefore, the complainant again visited OP no.2 on 28/5/2015, when he was issued registration slip no.4195066955 and after having repaired the microphone and also having updated the software, the same was returned to him but even then the phone was having the same problem.

3. The complainant again approached OP no.2 for the repair of the mobile hand set and he explained the executive of OP no.2 that despite the microphone having been repaired and software having been updated, the same was not performing normally although the mobile hand set was within the warranty period but the executive of OP no.2 refused to repair the mobile hand set which is said to be a deficiency in service on the part of OP no.2.

4. The complainant sent a legal notice against the OPs on 03/06/2015 asking for the refund of the price of the mobile hand set as also a sum of Rs.1000/- the cost of the notice within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. But despite the notice having been sent through registered post on 03/06/2015, the Ops failed to respond. Accordingly the complainant has brought this complaint against the Ops u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to pay him Rs.7350/- the price of the mobile hand set; Rs.1000/- towards the cost of the legal notice and Rs.5000/- towards the cost of the complaint.

5. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OP no.1 and 2 only. OP no.1 appeared to contest the complaint but OP no.2 despite service failed to appear and was accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

6. In the written version filed by OP no.1, it has raised certain preliminary objections, interalia that the forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint as OP has its office at New Delhi. The complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true facts and that the complaint of the complainant being motivated, frivolous and an abuse of the process of law, the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. As regards the facts of the complaint, the OP has not denied the complainant having purchased the mobile hand set make Samsung Galaxy S-Duos-3 from OP no.3. It is however submitted by OP no.1 that mobile hand set had been working perfectly without any problem for a period of four months since from the date of the purchase and had there been an inherent defect , the same would have arisen from the day one of the using of the mobile hand set. It was ascertained on the basis of the verification made from OP no.2 that Microphone was partially in damaged state because of external objects having entered into the microphone. The complainant mis-handled the mobile phone and because of which the problem occurred. However OP no.2 ensuring the satisfaction of the consumer made necessary repairs so as to make the same fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant still continued using the mobile phone in rough manner which was evident from the examination of the mobile phone when the same was brought to OP no.2 in the month of May 2015 and it was found that there were lot of dust particles in the speaker of the mobile. Again OP no.2 repaired the problem to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is denied that mobile hand set was neither repaired nor the software of the same was up-dated. OP no.2 had rightly repaired the product but the complainant insisted the replacement of the mobile hand set despite the fact that there was no fault in the same. Thus the complainant with an ill- founded motive is trying to harass OP no.1 so as to make wrongful gains.

7. OP no.1 denied the receipt of the legal notice got served by the complainant. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the OPs, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

8. In support of the complaint, the complainant produced Ex.CA his sworn affidavit along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and his counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand on behalf of the OP, its counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA the sworn affidavit of Sh. Sunil Bhargava, General Manager of Customer Satisfaction Department of the OP at New Delhi along with documents Ex.Op-1 and Ex.OP-2 and closed its evidence.

9. OP filed the written argument. We have examined the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

10. Ex.C-3 is the copy of the retail invoice dt.25/10/2014 with regard to the purchase of mobile hand set bearing IMEI no.355370/06/622834/5 and 355371/06/622834/3 make Samsung Galaxy S-Duos-3 made by the complainant from OP no.3. Ex.C-4 is the job sheet dt. 28/5/2015 issued by OP no.2 in favour of the complainant regarding the mobile hand set in question having noted the problem as : “spk pro”. Ex.C-1 is the job sheet dt. 14/8/2015 again issued by the OP in favour of the complainant regarding the mobile phone in question having noted the problem as : “hang, speaker and gallery items not deleted”. It was submitted by Sh. Chamandeep S. Mittal ld. counsel for the complainant that complainant had reported the problem in the mobile phone regarding Microphone as also in the software for the first time on 26/02/2015 vide registration slip no. 4190200233, a fact not rebutted by the OP in the written version or in the evidence lead by it.

11. It was further submitted by the ld. counsel for the complainant that the job sheet Ex.C-4 would go to show that mobile hand set was reported to OP no.2 during the pendency of the complaint but again the problem could not be rectified in respect of which the complainant has categorically stated in his sworn affidavit Ex.CA in para no.7, a fact not rebutted by the OP in its evidence going to show that the defect in the mobile hand set could not be rectified despite the complainant having approached OP no.2 three times i.e. firstly on 26/02/2015, secondly on 28/05/2015 and thirdly on 14/08/2015 and therefore, the mobile hand set manufactured by OP no.1 has got an inherrent defect and the same is not repairable and accordingly it was submitted that the same be got replaced by OP no.1.

12. In the other hand ld. counsel for OP could not state anything to rebut the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the complainant.

13. We have considered the submissions and are of the considered view that the mobile hand set having been repaired by OP no.2 three times, the same is still suffering from the same problem ( hang speaker and gallery item not been deleted) and therefore, the mobile hand set is practically not workable and consequently the same has got to be replaced. We therefore, accept the complaint and direct OP no.1 to replace the mobile hand set in question with the brand new mobile hand set of the same model and in case it is not possible to refund the price thereof i.e. Rs.7350/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the notice Ex.C-5 dt.03/06/2015. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is accepted with cost assessed at Rs.2500/-. Order be complied by OP no.1 within one month on receipt of the copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated: 24/12/2015

 

Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta D. R. Arora

Member Member President