DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:280 of 2010] Date of Institution : 10.05.2010 Date of Decision : 15.07.2011 ------------------------------------------- Ravi son of Sh. Sant Ram resident of H.No.1047, Sector 24B, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1. Samsung India through its Branch Office, SCO No.1034, Sector 22B, Chandigarh. 2. Anmol Watches & Electronic (P) Ltd., SCO No.1012-13, Sector 22B, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued By:Sh. Anil Kangar, Advocate for the complainant. None for OP No.1. OP No.2 already exparte. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh. Ravi has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed:- i) either to give a new mobile set to the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and inconvenience; or ii) to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- for harassment and inconvenience caused to the complainant; 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 15.02.2010, he purchased a Samsung Mobile S5233 from OP No.2 vide Cash Memo No.AW-22461 (copy attached with the complaint). The said mobile phone became defective within two months of its purchase. The complainant approached OP No.2, the dealer, who asked the complainant to approach customer care service centre. Accordingly, on 23.4.2010, the complainant deposited his mobile phone with the customer care centre at SCO No.1034, Sector 22B, Chandigarh for rectification of the defect. It is averred that the complainant was asked to collect his mobile set after one week. As per the complainant, when he approached the customer care centre to collect his mobile, he was told that the motherboard of the mobile set in question is to be replaced and the same is still awaited from the Head Office. The allegation of the complainant is that till date neither the mobile in question has been repaired nor any suitable reply is forthcoming from OPs. According to the complainant, failure to repair or replace the mobile set amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by OP No.1, it is pleaded that the mobile set deposited by the complainant has been duly repaired as its motherboard was duly replaced. It is further pleaded that the complainant was asked to collect the mobile set after repair but he did not respond and instead filed the present complaint. According to OP No.1, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. OP No.2 was duly served as per the report of the Process Server but it chose not to appear before the Forum and therefore, OP No.2 was ordered to be proceeded against vide order dated 29.09.2010. 5. On the date of final hearing i.e. 13.7.2011, none appeared on behalf of OP No.1. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the absence of OP No.1. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record. 7. Before dwelling to the merits of the case, it is pertinent to mention here that on 14.06.2010, Sh. Anil Saini, Manager of M/s A.M. Services appeared and offered to return the old hand set, which was given for repairs. As per him, the mobile in question was repaired and working properly but the complainant refused to accept the said offer and insisted for replacement of the mobile along with compensation. Statements of Sh. Anil Saini, Manager, AM Services and Sh. Ravi, complainant have also been recorded to this effect. 8. The warranty has not been placed on record by the complainant. In the absence of the said warranty, the terms and conditions of the warranty have not been proved. 9. As mentioned above, the mobile set has been duly repaired by the service centre of the OP free of cost and the motherboard has been changed. On the first available opportunity, an offer was made by the OP to the complainant for the return of the mobile handset, which was repaired and was in working condition. The learned counsel for the complainant has failed to draw our attention to any term and condition requiring the OPs to replace the mobile handset in question even in cases where the defect has been rectified and the mobile set is in working condition. In these circumstances, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs. 10. In view of the above, it is ordered that the OPs shall handover the repaired mobile handset in question in working condition to the complainant, in case he approaches the OPs for the said purpose within six months from today. As the mobile handset was offered at the first available opportunity after its repair, so, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation and litigation costs. Accordingly, the complaint is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 15th July 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Ad/-
DISTRICT FORUM-II C.C.No.280 of 2010 ORDER Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 13.07.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been disposed of. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 15.07.2011 President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
