DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.346 of 2017
Date of institution: 10.05.2017 Date of decision: 21.11.2017
Harvinder Singh son of Sewak Singh, resident of village Sohana, District Mohali (Punjab).
……..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Three Vee Marketing Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.1046, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.
2. Mobile Solutions, Authorised Service Centre, Samsung Mobile, SCF 48, First Floor, Phase-5, Mohali.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, Registered Office at A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi 110044.
…..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 to 14
Of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present : Complainant in person.
OPs ex-parte.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.
Complainant Harvinder Singh has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant purchased Samsung Galaxy A-5 Mobile phone from OP No.1 on 28.05.2016 for Rs.16,500/-. On 14.10.2016 there was some problem in the mobile set and took it to OP No.1 who after repairs informed the complainant that his phone is OK and the complainant has to pay Rs.5750/- to OP No.2. The mobile had problem on 2nd time on 24.04.2017 and the complainant took the mobile to OP No.2 who charged Rs.350/- from the complainant and then informed the complainant that there is some water in the mobile due to which it was damaged. OP No.2 informed that Rs.6500/- would be charged for replacing the screen. The complainant is not in a position to get the phone repairs by spending huge amount. Due to non repair of the phone the complainant is suffering huge loss of Rs.200/- per day. The complainant visited OP No.1 and 2 many times but his mobile has not been repaired. The mobile is still lying with OP No.2. Hence, the complainant has sought direction to the OPs to refund him Rs.16,500/- the sale price of the mobile and Rs.5750/- as service charges and to pay him Rs.2,000/- spent by him on rickshaw charges and Rs.2,000/- for mental agony and litigation expenses.
3. Notice sent by this Forum were delivered upon the OPs but none appeared on their behalf. Hence the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.08.2017.
4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW1/1; copies of invoice Ex.C-1 and cash receipts Ex.C-2 and C-3.
5. We have heard the complainant and have perused the record. The complainant has purchased the mobile phone from OP No.1 on 28.05.2016 for Rs.16,500/- vide invoice Ex.C-1. When the mobile phone had some problems the complainant took it to OP No.2 who charged Rs.5,750/- from the complainant for LCD change vide cash receipt dated 15.11.2016 Ex.C-2. Again the complainant had to take his mobile to OP No.2 as it had some problems in functioning and the OP No.2 further charged Rs.350/- for inspection charged on 29.04.2017 vide receipt Ex.C-3. After inspection, the OP No.2 informed the complainant that he will have to pay Rs.6500/- for replacement of screen of the mobile. The mobile phone is still lying with the OP No.2. During the course of arguments, the complainant has stated that the mobile phone had warranty of one year from the date of its purchase. The mobile phone was purchased by the complainant on 28.05.2016 which means that the mobile phone was under warranty upto 27.05.2017. However, OP No.2 had charged Rs.5750/- from the complainant vide receipt dated 15.11.2016 Ex.C-2 for LCD change and Rs.350/- towards inspection charges on 29.04.2017 vide receipt Ex.C-3. Although the complainant has not produced any warranty card to prove that the mobile was under warranty but it is a common knowledge that every new mobile when purchased has warranty of atleast one year from the date of its purchase. Thus, when the mobile phone of the complainant was under warranty, charging of Rs.5,750/- and Rs.350/- on 15.11.2016 and 29.04.2017 is not justified on the part of OP No.2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 as it has simply sold the mobile phone to the complainant. None appeared for the OPs to rebut the averments of the complaint. This conduct of the OPs show that they have nothing to say as regard to the averments of the complainant. The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of what the opponent’s case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties argue and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made therein are deemed to have been admitted. No amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea, which was never put forward in pleadings. A party cannot adduce evidence and set case inconsistent to the pleadings. No amount of proof can substitute pleadings, which are the foundation of the claim of the parties. When there is no pleading, the party is precluded from adducing evidence. As OP No.1 has simply sold the mobile phone to the complainant, no liability can be fastened upon it. Accordingly, complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed. However, OP No.2 and 3 are held liable for deficiency in service on their part in not resolving the grievance of the complainant.
8. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, OP No.2 and 3 are directed to refund to the complainant Rs.16,500/- (Rs. Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred only) i.e. the sale price of the mobile hand set, alongwith interest @ 12% w.e.f. 29.04.2017 till actual refund; and to pay him a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation. The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.
The OP No.2 and 3 are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of decision till actual payment.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 21.11.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
