Haryana

Sonipat

CC/334/2015

Astha C/o Rajesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung Inida Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.334 of 2015

                                Instituted on:11.09.2015

                                Date of order:02.11.2015

 

Astha c/o Rajesh Kumar r/o H.No.118/12, Ram Nagar, Sonepat.

 

                                                      ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.Samsung India Ltd. second Floor Vipul Tech square Building Sector 43, Golf Course road HUDA Gurgaon.

2.INS Telecom Ist Floor PNB Bank near Button Factory Gurdwara Sonepat Authorized service centre Samsung India Ltd. through Pankaj.

 

                                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Complainant in person through authorized representative Robin.

           Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva, Adv. (Karnal) for respondents.

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that she has purchased one Samsung Mobile Galaxy Note 4 from Kheriwala Sonepat on 4.2.2015 for Rs.56900/- with one year warranty. The said mobile was having network problem and LCD problem.  The complainant made so many complaints to the respondents, but of no use.  However, the respondent no.2 replaced Dizitter of the mobile with the assurance that now the mobile set will work properly.  But the said mobile worked properly for some time and it started problem in July, 2015 and on complaint, this time the respondents replaced the LCD.  The complainant requested the respondents either to replace the set with new one or to refund the cost of the mobile, but this request of the complainant has ended into smoke and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So,  she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that the complainant has lodged the complaints on 11.3.2015, 13.3.2015 and 10.7.2015 with regard to the defects developed in the mobile in question. The unit was made into right and perfect OK condition.  But the complainant’s intention is to get replaced the mobile set with new one. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the complainant and ld. Counsel for the respondents  at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        It is submitted on behalf of the complainant that the complainant purchased a mobile for such an huge amount of Rs.56900/- on 4.2.2015, but within one month, the said mobile started creating problem for the complainant.   The complainant made so many complaints with the respondents. The respondents replaced DIZITTER and  further replaced LCD of the mobile, but it has not brought any fruitful result for the complainant.

          In the reply, the respondents have admitted that the complainant has made complaints on 11.3.2015, 13.3.2015 and 10.7.2015  and LCD was replaced, some parts were replaced and Octa LC D and BRT tape were replaced. 

          In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has purchased mobile set for Rs.56900/- on 4.2.2015 and within one month, the complainant has to make the complaints twice i.e. 11.3.2015 and 13.3.2015 and lastly the complainant made the complaint on 10.7.2015 with the respondents and when the complainant get no fruitful result from the respondents, she has filed the present complaint before this Forum on 11.9.2015 i.e. within seven months from the date of its purchase.  So, it proves the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs.56900/- (Rs.fifty six thousand nine hundred only) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization. The complainant is directed to return the defective mobile set alongwith all its original accessories to the respondents immediately and in case of any short accessory, the respondents will be at liberty to deduct the cost of that short accessory from the awarded amount.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to the complainant and respondents free of costs.

          File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:02.11.2015