Punjab

Sangrur

CC/235/2018

Jatinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Singla Mobile Care - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ashish Grover

03 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  235

                                                Instituted on:    10.05.2018

                                                Decided on:       03.05.2019

 

 

Jatinder Singh S/o Sh. Balwant Singh R/o Dashmesh Nagar, Near Gurudwara Sahib, Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Singla Mobile Care, Near Baba Pir, Sangrur Road, Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur through its Prop/partner.

2.             Gaurav Communication, Gaushala Road, Near Railway Chowk, Sangrur through its Prop/Partner.

3.             Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 7^th & 8^th Floor, IFC-1, Tower, 61, Nehru Palace, New Delhi through its M.D.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.

For OP No.3             :               Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :               Exparte.

 

 

 

Quorum:   Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member    

                 Manisha, Member

 

Order by : Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member.

 

1.               Shri Jatinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one mobile Samsung J7 Prime 32 GB bearing IMEI number 352929088282417 from OP number 1 vide invoice number 4324 dated 11.5.2017 which was having one year warranty. Further case of the complainant is that from the very beginning the mobile set was not working properly and it was suffering from hanging problem and of network problem and the battery back up of the said mobile is very poor, as such, the complainant approached the OPs, but of no avail.  Further case of the complainant is that in the month of April 2018, the said mobile set started to give another problem “some time option key not working, set hanging and touch not working properly”, as such the complainant again visited the OPs on 26.4.2018, but the OPs failed to set right the mobile set in question. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the price of the mobile set  and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.               In reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint has been filed with mischievous intention as the complainant first time visited to the OP on 25.4.2018 after 11 months of its use, that the complainant is not entitled for any relief from this Forum as he has concealed this material fact, that the mobile set in question has been mishandled by the complainant leading to problem of hanging and touch sometimes not work, that the complainant has concealed the true facts from this Forum and that the complaint should be dismissed with special costs.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question for Rs.16,500/- vide bill dated 11.5.2017 for Rs.16,500/- from OP number 1. It is stated that the battery back up depends upon the usage of the mobile set. It is stated further that prior to 25.4.2018, the complainant never visited the OPs for any problem in the mobile set in question. It is stated further that the OP is not liable to repair the product in question as per the warranty terms and conditions nor the complainant is entitled for replacement of the mobile set. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.               Record shows that the OPs number 1 and 2 did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte.

 

4.               The learned counsel for the complainant has produced on record Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/3 and closed evidence.

 

5.               We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               From the perusal of the documents placed on the file by both the parties, we find that the complainant purchased one mobile Samsung J7 Prime 32GB from OP no.1 for an amount of  Rs.16,500/-  having one year warranty. The complainant  case is that from the beginning, the above said mobile set was not working properly and there was often problem of hanging in the mobile set and it does not catch the network of the network provider. The battery backup of the mobile is also very poor. Further in the month of April 2018 the said mobile started to give another problem, some times option key was not working, set hanging and touch not working properly and in this regard, the complainant visited OP no. 2 i.e. authorized service centre on 25.04.2018 to get the problem sort out and OP number 2 issued a job sheet and returned the mobile set to the complainant saying that all the problems have been sorted out, but the same problems still persisted. The complainant again visited the OP number 2 and was conveyed that they had made every effort to remove the problem, but mobile set is having manufacturing defect which can not be rectified. To support his claim regarding the manufacturing defect in the mobile set, the complainant has placed on record the  certificate of Singh Connectivity dated 30.04.2018 Ex.C-4, wherein Mr. Damanjit Singh proprietor of Singh Connectivity has opined that  the mobile set  was giving the problem of  some times option key not working, set hanging and touch not working properly and he  checked the said mobile phone and found that the same has manufacturing defect, which is not curable. The complainant has also produced  affidavit of Mr. Damanjit Singh Ex.C-5.   The OP no.3 has denied  the defect in the  mobile set and stated that  if any defect in the mobile set is there then the OP no.2 is liable for the same. The OP no.1 & 2 has not come forward to contest the case of the complainant rather they chose to remain exparte. Further we don't agree with the contention of the OP No.3 that the complainant has come to OP No.2 after eleven months of the purchase of the hand set and extensive use there is not  inherent manufacturing defect. In our view defect(s)  can occur any time and persist over the times and occurrence of the defects in this case have been taken place within the warranty period and the relief is required to be given to the complainant.

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to replace the mobile set in question with the same model. The OPs are further directed to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.2000/- on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation. The liability of the Ops shall be joint and several.

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course. 

                Pronounced.

                 May 3, 2019.

                                            

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                   Presiding Member

 

                                                        (Manisha)

                                                        Member