Punjab

Sangrur

CC/782/2015

Jaspal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Singla Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S. Shergill

05 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                              

                                                Complaint No.  782

                                                Instituted on:    05.08.2015

                                                Decided on:       05.05.2016

 

Jaspal Singh aged about 27 years son of Mohinder Singh, resident of Village Talwandi Malik, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Singla Mobile Care, near Samadh Baba Pir, Sangrur Road, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur, through its Proprietor.

2.             Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. B-1, Sector 81, Phase 2, Noida, District Gautam Budha Nagar (UP) through its Managing Director.

3.             Samsung Care Centre (authorised service centre of OP number 2) SCO 1, 1^st Floor, City Centre, Bhupindra Road, Patiala through its Proprietor.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant  :               Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

For OP No.2             :               Shri  J.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OP No.1&3         :               Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Jaspal 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 Samsung Note II mobile set bearing IMEI number 356829050218470 for Rs.24,000/- vide invoice dated 11.11.2014 from OP number 1 with one year full warranty. It is further averred in the complaint that on the very next day, the complainant was shocked to see that the mobile set was automatically shut down and did not start despite efforts by the complainant, as such, he approached OP number 1 for removing the defect in the mobile set, who after checking told the complainant to approach OP number 3. It is further averred that the complainant immediately approached OP number 3 and requested to remove the defects therein.  It is further averred that OP number 3 after checking the mobile set told that it is not repairable and issue the DOA letter regarding the replacement of the said mobile set with a new one and further assured to collect the same on 17.11.2014. It is further averred that on 17.11.2014, the complainant approached OP number 3 for collecting the new mobile set as per DOA letter, but the OP number 3 told that they have not yet received the same and to come after 15 days.  It is further averred that thereafter the complainant approached the Ops so many times, but all in vain and did not supply the mobile set, which is said to be a clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund him the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.24,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 1 and 3 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 and 3 were  proceeded exparte on 06.10.2015.

 

3.             In the reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is a gross abuse of the process of law and is base on false, frivolous and baseless allegations. The complainant has not alleged any specific allegations against the OPs. As per the facts pleaded by the complainant the hand set has allegedly been purchased on 11.11.2014 and he faced problem on 12.11.2014 and approached OP number 3, who on inspection of hand set found minor problem and rectified, but the complainant insisted that he does not want to get his hand set repaired and want replacement and the service centre as a gesture of goodwill forwarded the proposal for replacement of the hand set, but when the proposal for replacement of hand set was accepted, the complainant refused to accept the same. That the performance of the mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product, that the complainant has not set out any legitimate ground entitling him for replacement of the mobile set.  On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP number 1 vide bill dated 11.11.2014 for Rs.24,000/-.  It has been admitted that the mobile set in question is with the OP number 2. It has been denied that the OP number 3 failed to provide the new mobile set to the complainant, rather when the proposal for replacement of hand set was accepted, the complainant refused to accept the same.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 copy of job sheet and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

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

 

6.               It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased one Samsung Note II white colour mobile set from OP number 1 vide bill dated 11.11.2014, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2. It is further an admitted fact that the mobile set in question was found defective one, as such he approached OP number 3 (service centre of OP number 2) for replacement of the mobile set and there was PBA fault and the OP number 3 issued the DOA meaning thereby the mobile set requires to be replaced with a new one.  It is on the record that thereafter the mobile set was never delivered to the complainant nor there is any evidence on record that the mobile set was ever offered in place of the mobile set which was got deposited by OP number 3 from the complainant on 12.11.2014. It is worth mentioning here that it is the complainant, who purchased the mobile set on 11.11.2014, but has not used even for a single day and the mobile set was deposited with the OP number 3 for replacement on 12.11.2014.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not deliver the new mobile set to the complainant as promised, but the OPs slept over the mobile set without any reason, more so when the complainant had spent a huge amount of Rs.24,000/- on the mobile set for personal use.  We may further mention that the OP number 2 has written in the reply that the OP is still ready and willing to replace the hand set in question, but no offer for refund of the amount was made to the complainant nor the mobile set was ever offered to the complainant. As such, we feel that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs number 2 and 3. 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs number 2 and 3 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.24,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 12.11.2014 till realisation, however, subject to the returning of the mobile set in question alngwith all the accessories to the Ops at the time of getting the payment.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 5, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member