DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.294 of 15

                                           DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 26-10-2015

                                                     DATE OF ORDER: 21-07-2016

Gulab Singh son of Sh. Maha Singh, resident of Friends Colony, Kharkari Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

            ……………Complainant.

VERSUS               

1. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Limited, B-1, Sector-81, Phase-2, Noida, DT Gautam Budh Nagar U.P.

1. Mobile Store, Opp. State Bank of India, Ghanta Ghar, Bhiwani.

1. Malik Communication, Shop No. 1, Ist Floor, Ghanpat Rai Hospital, Opp. Nehru Park, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

………….. Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: -  Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.

Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

Mrs. Sudesh, Member.

Present:-   Sh. Krishan Goyat, Advocate for the complainant.

      Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for Ops no. 1 & 3.

      None for OP no. 2.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 18.03.2014 he had purchased a mobile Star Galauxy IMEI No. 357146057811788 Model No. GT-S5282, Serial No. RZID74KE9Z from OP no. 2 amounting to Rs. 5,000/- against bill no. 8848.  It is alleged that after some time the mobile set became defected and complainant gave information to the OP no. 2 but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such he had to file the present complaint.

2.                 Opposite party no. 1 & 3 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the answering opposite party i.e. Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. is a renowned company in Electronic Products and Commodities and is manufacturing Electronic Products for the past several years.  It is submitted that the present complaint is filed without any expert opinion which will prove that the mobile is not working properly and merely by oral version of the complainant it cannot be ascertain that the mobile is not working properly.  It is submitted that as per the company policy the company gives one year warranty (not guarantee) on the unit warranty means in case of any problem with the unit the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per company policy.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 & 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                 OP no. 2 on appearance filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant is not maintainable against the OP no. 2 as the OP no. 2 has no concern or connection whatsoever with the guarantee/warranty of the mobile in question and same relates to Ops no. 1 & 3 as such the same is liable to be dismissed.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.                 In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3 alongwith supporting affidavit.

5.                 In reply thereto, the counsel for Op no. 1 & 3 has tendered into evidence Annexure R-1  to Annexure R-3. 

6.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                 The counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of his complaint.  He submitted that the mobile handset of the complainant is not working properly due to the defect which has not been rectified by the Ops.  The Ops were liable to replace the mobile handset of the complainant.

8.                The counsel for the Ops no. 1 & 3 reiterated the contents of his reply.  He submitted that the warranty provided by the company which is subject to certain terms and conditions.  The complainant is liable to pay the charges for the burnt part of the mobile handset.

9.                 The complainant produced the mobile handset in question from OP no. 2 vide bill dated 18.03.2014 for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/-.  The mobile handset of the complainant became defective during the period of warranty of one year.  It has not come on the file that the mobile handset was having any manufacturing defect.  As the mobile handset was within the warranty period, the Ops are liable to repair the mobile handset, free of cost.  Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to replace the defective parts of the mobile handset and deliver the mobile handset to the complainant in working condition, within 30 days.  The complainant is directed to approach the Ops to get repaired his mobile handset.  The Ops are also directed to pay Rs. 1500/- as lumpsum compensation to the complainant. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum

Dated:.21-07-2016.                                                   (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                       President,      

                                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                                           Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

                    (Anamika Gupta)            (Sudesh)

                          Member           Member