Haryana

Kurukshetra

68/2017

Sikander - Complainant(s)

Versus

V.K.Tradings - Opp.Party(s)

Suresh Saini

05 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.68/17.

Date of instt. 24.3.17. 

                                              Date of Decision: 5.2.18.

 

Sikandar Saini son of Suresh Saini, resident of village Devidasspura, Sector-5 District Kurukshetra.

                                        ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. V.K. Trading Company, Samsung Smarat Plaza, Near Neelam Cinema, Red Road, Kurukshetra.
2. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited A. 25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi. 

 

..………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:        Sh. Suresh Saini, Adv. for complainant.

 Op No.1 ex parte.

 Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Adv. for OP No.2.

ORDER     

 

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sikandar Saini against V.K. Trading Company and another, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy J-7 Mobile from Op No.1 vide invoice No.105 dated 27.3.2016 for a sum of Rs.13,700/- and the Ops provided one year guarantee of the hand set. From the very beginning the hand set was not working properly and ultimately, the complainant visited the service center of the company and the hand set was checked by service agency. The service agency demanded Rs.6100/- for repair of the hand set. The complainant requested that the hand set is within guarantee period and the Ops are responsible to remove the defect but the agency refused to repair the hand set without money. The complainant again visited the service center of the company on 21.1.2017 and the agency demanded Rs.4113/- and the complainant paid the said amount to the agency for removing the defects but after 10 days the hand set again became defective and the complainant requested the agency but the agency refused to repair the hand set. 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 refund the cost of  the hand and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.

3.             Op No.1 has failed to come present and as such, he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 2.5.2017.    

4.            OP No.2 appeared and contested the complaint by way of filing written statement taking preliminary objections that answering OP is to serve its customer and provide goods at the most competitive price and also enable most impeccable after sales services and there is no intent whatsoever to deny the same. In case any after sale service issue is brought to the notice of the answering OP as a policy matter the same is immediately corrected as a matter or priority. Had the complainant approached the answering OP the answering OP rightfully with correct facts, prompt service would have been provided but rather than doing so the complainant has preferred the present complaint. 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 placed on record his own affidavit and other documents. On the other hand, the OP 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 27.3.2016 for the sale consideration of Rs.13,700/-. From the perusal of Job Sheet, it is clear that the unit became defective on 6.8.2016 i.e. within the warranty/guarantee period. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced from Op No.2, 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.2 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.2.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.  

Announced:

Dated :5.2.2018                         (G.C.Garg)

                                                  President,

                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                       Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra.

 

 

       

(Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)   (Viraj Pahil)

  Member                           Member