Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/317

Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswant Singh

08 May 2017

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :          317

Date of Institution :     1.11.2016

Date of Decision :       8.05.2017

Raj Kumar, aged about 32 years s/o Tara Chand s/o Kishori Lal, r/o Krishna Nagar, Street No. 2, Jalaleana Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. Head Office, Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th Floor Tower C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon 122002 Haryana India through its Managing Director.
2. Garg Telecom, Fouji Road, Dhodha Chowk, Kotkapura, District Faridkot through its Proprietor.

                                    ....Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present:       Sh Jaswant Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

 OP-2 Exparte.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to replace the defective mobile phone or return the entire price of said mobile and for also directing Ops to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc besides litigation expenses.

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a Samsung-A5 mobile phone from Op-2 vide bill no.1332 dated 22.03.2016 for Rs.17,500/- and said phone bore guarantee and warrantee for one years i.e from 22.03.2016 to 21.03.2017. It is submitted that during the warranty period on 2.08.2016, phone in question stopped working and got shut down automatically and also did not show network.  Complainant immediately reported the matter to Ops, who after examination disclosed that phone in question has some defect and it can be removed by authorized care centre of the Company. On same date, complainant handed over the said set to OP-2 for necessary repairs but OP-2 returned the same to complainant on 17.08.2016 without making any repair and without removing the defect. On 5.09.2016, complainant again deposited the said mobile phone with OP-1 for necessary repairs, who assured him that defect from his mobile phone would be removed within two days otherwise his mobile handset would be replaced, but till today they have neither returned his mobile hand set nor made any replacement with new one. Complainant visited the office of Ops several times with request to either return his mobile phone after repairs or the replace the same, but all in vain. Efforts made by complainant to get it repaired bore no fruit and complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and due to this complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Ops to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc alongwith litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 7.11.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the OPs.

4                                                On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complainant has filed the present complaint with mischievous intention and claim sought by him is frivolous. It is asserted that complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and is therefore, not entitled to any relief. It is averred that complainant submitted his mobile handset with them on 6.08.2016 with problem of ‘No Network’ and his said problem was duly rectified upto his satisfaction and handset was delivered to him in okay condition and thereafter, he again submitted the said handset to them on 5.09.2016 and this time also the service centre of Ops duly rectified the problem, but due to ulterior motive, complainant himself did not come to take back his mobile phone. Though repeated calls were made to him and he was also issued reminders, but he intentionally did not come to take back his mobile phone. Complainant has levelled false allegations that Ops have not removed the defect and repaired his mobile phone, but in fact his handset is repaired and it is working properly and now it has no defect, but he himself did not come to them to take back his mobile phone and has levelled false and frivolous allegations on Ops to get some undue advantage. It is further averred that performance of mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product apart from compatibility of downloaded mobile applications and games and in present case, mobile in question has been physically mishandled by complainant submitted twice with authorised service centres for repair and it was duly rectified upto satisfaction of complainant, but he is not coming to them to take back his mobile phone. Moreover, complainant has not alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of specific part of product nor filed any expert evidence to prove his allegations and in the absence of expert evidence, the claim can not be allowed. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too have been denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissed of complaint.

5                                         Notice containing copy of complaint was issued to OP-2 through registered post but same was not received back undelivered in the Forum. Statutory period expired. Acknowledgment must have been mis-laid in transit. Case was called up many times, but OP-2 did not appear in the Forum either in person or through counsel to defend the allegations levelled by complainant. Therefore, vide order dt 20.12.2016, OP-2 was proceeded against ex parte.

6                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 3 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                           The ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Anindya Boss as Ex.OP-1 and document Ex OP-2 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

8                                We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents produced by parties.

9                                         Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased a Samsung-A5 mobile phone from Op-2 vide bill no.1332 dated 22.03.2016 for Rs.17,500/- and said phone bore guarantee and warrantee for one year. It is submitted that during the warranty period on 2.08.2016, phone in question of complainant stopped working and got shut down automatically and also did not show network. Complainant immediately reported the matter to Ops, who after examination disclosed that phone has some defect and it can be removed by authorized care centre of the Company. On same date, complainant handed over the said set to OP-2 for necessary repairs but OP-2 returned the same to complainant on 17.08.2016 without making any repair and without removing the defect. On 5.09.2016, complainant again deposited the said mobile phone with OP-1 for necessary repairs, who assured him that defect from his mobile phone would be removed within two days otherwise his mobile handset would be replaced, but till today they have neither returned his mobile hand set nor made any replacement with new one. Complainant visited the office of Ops several times with request to either return his mobile phone after repairs or the replace the same, but all in vain. Efforts made by complainant to get it repaired bore no fruit and complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of Ops. It amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and  litigation expenses besides the main relief. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 3.

10                                          To controvert the allegations levelled by complainant, ld counsel for OPs averred that complainant has filed the present complaint with mischievous intention and claim sought by him is frivolous. It is asserted that complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and is therefore, not entitled to any relief. It is averred that complainant submitted his mobile handset first time with them on 6.08.2016 with problem of ‘No Network’ and said problem of his mobile phone was duly rectified upto his satisfaction and handset was delivered to him in okay condition and thereafter, he again submitted the said handset to them on 5.09.2016 and this time also the service centre of Ops duly rectified the problem, but due to ulterior motive, complainant himself did not come to take back his mobile phone. Despite repeated calls and issuance of reminders to complainant he intentionally did not come to take back his mobile phone. Complainant has levelled false allegations that Ops have not removed the defect and repaired his mobile phone, but in fact his handset is repaired and it is working properly and now it has no defect, but he himself did not come to them to take back his mobile phone and has levelled false and frivolous allegations on Ops to get some undue advantage. Performance of mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product apart from compatibility of downloaded mobile applications and games and in present case, mobile in question has been physically mishandled by complainant. It was submitted twice with authorised service centres for repair and it was duly rectified upto satisfaction of complainant, but he is not coming to them to take back his mobile phone. Moreover, complainant has not alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of specific part of product nor filed any expert evidence to prove his allegations and in the absence of expert evidence, the claim cannot be allowed. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. And all the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too have been refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint.

11                         We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. From the careful perusal of the record it is observed that main grievance of complainant is that mobile purchased by him from Ops against proper bill became defective within warranty period and when complainant reported the matter to Ops and handed over the said mobile to them for repair, they returned the same to complainant after keeping with them for some days with them without making any repairs. Complainant further deposited the said handset with them on 5.09.2016, but this time they neither returned the mobile phone after repair, nor made any replacement and also did not refund the cost price of mobile in question. All this amounts to deficiency in service and caused him harassment and mental agony. In reply, Ops admitted that complainant submitted the handset with them two times and stressed mainly on point that mobile of complainant is fully repaired and is in working condition, but complainant himself intentionally has not come to them to take back his mobile phone. All the other allegations have been denied by them.

12                        It is admitted case of the parties that complainant purchased the mobile in question from Ops and it was under warranty period. It is also admitted that complainant handed over the said mobile to Ops for repair. Allegation of complainant is that Ops did not return his mobile phone after repairs to him, on the contrary Ops have stated before the Forum that handset of complainant is fully repaired, but he himself did not come to them to take it back. From the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that to prove their version, Ops have not placed on record any reminder or letter issued by them to complainant to take back his mobile phone, therefore, there is clear cut deficiency in service on their part in not making proper repair and handing over the mobile phone to complainant despite his repeated requests. In these circumstances, this Forum is of considered opinion that complainant has succeeded in proving his case. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to repair the mobile phone of complainant upto his entire satisfaction. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.3000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be liable to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 8.05.2017

Member                          President

(P Singla)                       (Ajit Aggarwal)