Haryana

Kurukshetra

80/2017

Gulshan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Neelkhant - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.80/17.

Date of instt. 10.4.17. 

                                              Date of Decision: 1.2.18.

 

Gulshan Kumar son of Gobind Ram, resident of House No.267, Ward No.-11, Gogameri Mohalla Shahbad (Markanda), District Kurukshetra.

                                        ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. Shree Neelkanth Mobiles, Ladwa Road, Near Bank of Baroda, Shahbad (M).
2. Bansal Communication, Samsung Care Center, Kurukshetra Road, Pipli, District Kurukshetra.
3. Director, Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, B-1, Sector-81, Phase-2 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pardesh.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

 

Before               Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member

Smt. Viraj Pahil, Member

       

Present:         Complainant in person.

 Op No.1 in person.

 Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Adv. for OPs No.2&3.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Gulshan Kumar against Shree Neelkanth Mobiles and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that on 27.3.2017 complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy bearing IMEI No.352810082355708 and 352809082355700 for a sum of Rs.21,900/- from Op No.1. The above said hand set became defective after 2-3 days and on 29.3.2017 the complainant contacted Op No.2 with the request to remove the defect and Op No.2 after some time remove the defect but on the next day the hand set became again defective and the complainant visited the service center of Ops on 6.4.2017 but they did not give any satisfactory reply. The complainant requested the Ops many a time to remove the defect but they did not pay any heed. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to replace the hand set and to pay Rs.6,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.

3.             Upon notice Opposite Parties appeared. OP No.1 contested the complaint by way of filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the answering OP is proprietor of Shree Neelkanth Mobiles and the complainant had purchased the hand set bearing IMEI No.352810082355708 and 352809082355700 on 27.3.2017.   The warranty/guarantee provided on behalf of the company and the answering OP has not knowledge regarding any defect in the hand set and the authorized service center is having the knowledge regarding the defect in the hand set.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were reiter

4.            OPs No.2 & 3 appeared and contested the complaint by way of filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing defect/technical fault, neither placed on record any analysis report for the perusal of this Forum. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were reiterated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.  

5.            The complainant has tendered in to evidence his own affidavits as Ex.CW1/A and CW2/A and document Ex.C1 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, the Ops did not lead any evidence.

6.             We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7.            From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 27.3.2017 for the sale consideration of Rs.21,900/-. From the perusal of Job Sheet Annexure R2 it is clear that the unit became defective on 4.5.2017 i.e. within the warranty/guarantee period. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced from Op No.3, who is manufacture of the unit in question.

8.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.3 to replace the hand set of the complainant with new one of the same model.  The complainant is directed 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.3.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.  

Announced:

Dated :1.2.2018                          (G.C.Garg)

                                                  President,

                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                       Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra.

 

 

       

(Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)   (Viraj Pahil)

  Member                           Member