Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/17/12

Kulwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Singh Walian Di Hatti & Another - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amarwinder Singh, Adv.

09 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  12 of 01.03.2017

                                 Date of decision                    :      09.04.2018

 

Kulwinder Singh, son of Sadhu Singh, resident of Village Choti Jhallian, Near Guruidwara Sahib, Tehsil & District Rupnagar. 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Singh Walian Di Hatti, situated Near Indian Bank, Kalgidhar Market, Rupnagar, District Rupnagar, through its proprietor. 

2.  Apps Daily having customer care office at Shop No.2, near Banki Di Hatti, Near Shiv Mandir Arya Samaj Road, Nawanshahar through its proprietor 

3. Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd. D3137 oberio garden estates, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri, East Mumbai, 400072 through its Branch Manager.   

                                                                         ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

 

Sh.Amarwinder Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

 Sh. Munish Ahuja, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.1

          Complaint against OP No.2 stands dismissed as withdrawn

 O.P. No.3 ex-parte

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.         Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to replaced the mobile set in question with the new one; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation;  along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.         Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the complainant purchased the Samsung Mobile set for a sum of Rs.8300/- from O.P. No.1 and it was insured with O.Ps. No.2 & 3. After its purchase, the said mobile set has started giving problems and got hanged every time. He reported the matter to the O.P. No.1 but it delayed the matter till one month and finally told that the said set will be repaired by the O.P. No.2 and mobile set was sent to O.P. No.2 for its repair on 31.12.2016 and Rs.1000/- was charged by the O.P. No.2 from the complainant. The mobile set in question was got financed by the Home Credit and installment were paid in time and now nothing is due towards him. After receiving the mobile set, the O.P. No.2 had assured him to receive the phone within a week, but after week and months they have been putting of the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly he has visited the office of O.P. No.2 but their office is closed nor their phone numbers are working. He requested the O.P. No.1 to replace the mobile set with the new one as the same was giving problems but the O.P. No.1 told to us that the said mobile set was replaced by the O.Ps. No.2 & 3. Hence, this complaint.  

 3.   On notice, O.P. No.1 appears through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the parties; that the O.P. No.1 is the seller of the mobiles, who deals in sale of mobile only not of the insurance or service and O.P. No.1 never sold insurance to the complainant; that the guarantee of the mobile is covered by Samsung through its service centre and complainant never approached the service centre of Samsung and nor made the party. On merits, it is stated that answering O.P. has no concern with the insurance of mobile nor sold any insurance to the complainant. Even answering O.P. has no concern with the problem of hanging of the mobile or starting of the mobile and it is covered by the service centre of the Samsung and the complainant never visited the service centre with written problem in the paragraph. The answering O.P. never sent the complainant to the O.Ps. No.2 & 3 as the O.P. No.1 has no concern regarding this service of mobile, rather mobile is Samsung and Samsung has its service centre at Rupnagar and complainant never visited the same. It is further stated that no request of the complainant is received by the O.P. No.1. Moreover, the answering O.P. has no concern with the O.Ps. No.2 & 3. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof. 

4.         On being put to the notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P. No.3, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.4.2017.

5.         On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered his sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1  has tendered affidavit of Sh. Dinesh Bhalla, Proprietor of Singh Walian Di Hatti Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence.

6.    We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

7.    Complainant counsel Sh. Amarwinder Singh, argued that Kulwinder Singh purchased one mobile set make Samsung from O.P. No.1 for a sum of Rs.8300/- and it was insured with O.Ps. No.2 & 3. After the purchase and during the valid period of warranty/insurance, the purchased mobile set started creating trouble and in the month of December 2016, complainant handed over the mobile set for its repair to the O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.2 on 31.12.2016 returned the mobile set to the complainant by charging Rs.1000/-. But thereafter, again the set was not in working condition, complainant requested many times to the O.Ps. for the repair but no result, finally complainant has to file the present complaint. The learned counsel further argued that deficiency on the part of the O.Ps stand fully established, the complaint be allowed and relief claimed to be allowed against the O.Ps.

8.    It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of complaint, complainant withdrawn the complaint against O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.3 not appeared and was proceeded against ex-parte on 21.4.2017. Notice served upon the O.P. No.1 and represented by Sh. Munish Ahuja, Advocate, who argued that no doubt complainant purchased the mobile set for a sum of Rs.8300/- from OP No.1 but OP No.1 is not responsible for any of the defect or qua damages/warranty or insurance. Complainant not impleaded the manufacturer i.e. Samsung as O.P. Further, the warranty period only w.i.f. 07.01.2015 and warranty comes to an end of 06.01.2016. Further, if the purchase set was insured then the warranty period comes to an end on 06.01.2016. The defect pointed out on 31.12.2016, so claim is not within warranty and the complainant moved an application against the O.P. No.1 to the police authorities and police authorities recorded the statements, but no fruit. The learned counsel lastly prayed that complainant never handed over the mobile set to the Samsung Care Centre at any stage of warranty and now the claim is without merit.

9.    Complainant is resident of District Ropar and he purchased mobile set for Rs.8300/- from OP No.1 and now pointed out the deficiency of working in the month of December, 2016. So it is a consumer dispute and this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain.

10.  It is the prime duty of the complainant to prove the deficiency on the part of O.Ps., if complainant proves deficiency then the complaint is to be allowed otherwise not. Complainant alleged the purchase date 07.01.2015 from O.P. No.1 for a sum of Rs.8300/- and placed on file photocopy of the bill Ex.C1. So, it is the admitted document. Ex.C2 is the document of Apps daily of March 2014 and is in the name of Gurbaksh Singh. Ex.C3 is Job Sheet dated 31.12.2016 in the name of Kulwinder Singh (complainant) and in the end it is recorded that “Liquid damage handset running time switch off problem”.

Then Ex.C4 is the receipt of Rs.1200/-. Ex.C5 claim registration file then Ex.C6 to Ex.C9, are the documents written on behalf of complainant to the police authorities, P.S. City, Rupnagar. Besides this, there is nothing on the file. At the same time, to rebut the evidence of complainant, O.P. No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Dinesh Bhalla proprietor of Singh Walian Di Hatti Ex.OP1/A and orally argued the learned counsel that complainant has not been able to prove deficiency on the part of O.P. No.1. After appreciating the documentary evidence adduced by the complainant then appreciating the documents, the Forum has come to the conclusion that purchase date of mobile set is 07.01.2015 is admitted. If the warranty was of one year then it comes to an end on 06.01.2016 and similarly the status of insurance. Complainant pointed out the defect in the month of December 2016 and not approached to the Samsung Care Centre, he approached to the O.P. No.2 i.e. apps daily and apps daily not relate to Samsung Care Centre i.e. why O.P. No.2 charged Rs.1200/- or Rs.1000/-. Now complaint stand dismissed as withdrawn against OPs No.2 & 3. More so, no policy document for the relevant period placed on file by the complainant then the Forum is of the opinion that deficiency remain unproved against any of the O.P. So complaint is without merit.

11.         In the light of above discussion, the complaint stand dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost.

12..       The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

                   ANNOUNCED                                                       (KARNAL SINGH AHHI)

                   Dated .09.04.2018                                      PRESIDENT
 

 

                                                           (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                              MEMBER