DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.233 of 2016
Date of institution: 25.04.2016 Date of decision : 13.09 .2017
Rakesh Kumar son of Rajinder Kumar, resident of House No.23, Village Sambhalki, Tehsil and District, Mohali 140306 (Punjab).
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Samsung Service Centre: 0003469154 – Mobile Solutions, SCO 48, Phase V, Mohali (Punjab).
2. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi 110044.
3. Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Ltd., SCO 1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: None for the complainant.
Shri Puneet Tuli, counsel for OP No.1 and 2.
OP No.3 already given up.
ORDER
By Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Complainant Rakesh Kumar has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant had purchased one mobile phone Samsung Galaxy J 7 Gold from OP No.3 for Rs.14,300/- vide bill dated 18.02.2016. The mobile is not working properly since its purchase. The complainant contacted OP No.1 vide complaint No.4210059120 on 29.02.2016 and submitted the mobile phone at their service centre. OP No.1 returned the mobile to the complainant after repairs. However, the complainant again submitted the mobile to OP No.1 on 05.04.2016 as the mobile was not working properly. On 08.04.2016 when the mobile was not working, the complainant submitted his mobile with OP No.1, who refused to repair the mobile handset. Thereafter, the lot of e-mails exchanged between the complainant and OP No.1, however, the handset has not been repaired. This has caused great harassment, inconvenience and mental torture etc. to the complainant. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund Rs.14300/- i.e. the price of the mobile or in the alternative to replace the mobile with a new one; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, agony, etc. and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.
3. The complaint has been contested by OP No.1 and 2 by filing joint reply in which it has been pleaded that as the mobile handset is within warranty, the OP No.1 and 2 never refused to carry out the repairs and are still ready and willing to carry out such repairs as may be necessary within the warranty terms and conditions. As the complainant is seeking refund/replacement of the handset, the onus is on him to prove that the handset is not capable of being repaired. The complainant had refused to get the mobile repaired, hence it cannot be said that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile. The complainant has not attached any proof to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. The OPs have pleaded that they have sorted out the issues in the mobile set as and when approached by the complainant and the case history is that the Mobile was working fine from 29.02.2016 to 01.03.2016 and network issue and Whatsapp issue and network issue was reported on 05.04.2016 but the mobile handset was working fine. On 08.04.2016 the mobile set was fine but network issue was there. As per the complainant from 15.04.2016 to 04.05.2016 the mobile was having Whatsapp and network issue but on checking no problem was found in the set and the problem in whatsapp was on its end and not in the handset. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant made the statement on 16.09.2016 that he does not want to claim any relief against OP No.3 and has given up OP No.3 from the array of the OPs.
5. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of retail invoice Ex.C-1 and e-mails Ex.C-2. In rebuttal, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Amit Rana, their Manager as Ex.OP-1/1.
6. We have heard learned counsel for OP No.1 and 2 and gone through the contents of the file.
7. The complainant has purchased the mobile set from OP No.3. The mobile handset of the complainant started giving problems after few days of purchase. The complainant visited the service centre many a times but his problem of mobile handset was not resolved whereas the OP No.1 and 2 have specifically denied that they have never refused to carry out any repairs and they have also done the repairs as and when the complainant visited the service centre. The complainant has led evidence by placing on record copies of e-mails i.e. Ex.C-2, which duly prove that OP No.1 and 2 are deficient in resolving the problems of the handset of the complainant which was newly purchased by the complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that the OP No.1 and 2 are deficient in providing service to the complainant by not repairing the mobile of the complainant and the complaint stands partly allowed accordingly.
8. We direct the OP No.1 and 2 to refund to the complainant the price of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.14,300/- (Rs. Fourteen thousand three hundred only) and OP No.1 and 2 should further pay a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for mental harassment and costs of litigation.
The OP No.1 and 2 are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the aforesaid awarded compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual realisation.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 13.09.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput) President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
