Haryana

Kurukshetra

09/2018

Raghubinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India - Opp.Party(s)

In person

17 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.9 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 11.01.2018.

                                                     Date of decision:17.05.2018.

Raghuvinder Singh Hayer (Advocate) son of Sh. Mohinder Singh, R/o H.No.1230, Sector-1, Part-II, Urban Estate, Shahabad (M), Distt. Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Samsung India Electronic, SCO No.35, Sector-31, HUDA Market, Gurgaon, through its Manager.
2. Bansal Communication Samsung Mobile Centre, near Geeta Dawar, Pipli Chowk, Kurukshetra through its Manager. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Complainant in person.   

                Sh. Shekar Kapoor, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Raghuvinder Singh against Samsung India Electronic and another, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile set make Samsung J7 Pro bearing IMEI No.358675/08/087417/5, 358675/08/087417/2 from Nirmal Trading Agency, Shahabad (M) for a sum of Rs.20,899.99 paise vide bill No.7940 dt. 04.08.2017.  It is alleged that just after 3-4 months of its purchase, the said mobile set started appearing on the display (screen) of the phone and it going on increasing in size day by day.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.2 regarding the defective mobile set but the Op No.2 did not repair the mobile set of complainant and demanded some charges despite the fact that the said mobile set was within the guarantee period.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to refund the price of mobile set and further to pay compensation of Rs.5500/- for harassment and mental agony as-well-as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the complainant is not a consumer as the complainant has not introduced the dealer, who is a necessary party.  The complainant is claiming the purchase of unit from the dealer on the basis of Sales Invoice dt. 04.08.2017 but there is nobody to counter the purchase of said unit; that the complainant in regard to complaint regarding his unit approached the service-centre on 29.12.2017 and after checking the said unit, the engineer found that the display of the unit was damaged/hard press.  The engineer told the complainant that the unit cannot be considered under warranty and the repair shall be on chargeable basis and accordingly, an estimate of repair was provided to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

5.             From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 04.08.2017 for the sale consideration of Rs.20,899.99 paise.  From the perusal of complaint and other documents, it is clear that the unit became defective within the warranty/guarantee period and despite  several requests, the defects could not be removed from the said mobile set.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced from Op No.1, who is manufacturer of the unit in question.

6.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.1 to replace the hand set of the complainant with new one of the same model.  The complainant is directed to deposit the old hand set along with bill and accessories with the service center of the company.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.1.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.: 17.05.2018. 

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member