Haryana

Kurukshetra

193/2018

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vikas Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

29 Nov 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.193 of 2018.

Date of instt.:07.09.2018.

                                                                          Date of Decision:29.11.2018.

Suresh Kumar aged about 32 years, son of Shri Balbir Singh, resident of Village & Post Office Niwarsi (Dera) near Village Babkhera, Tehsil Ladwa, Distt. Kurukshetra.

 

 

                                                                ……….Complainant.                               Versus

1. Vikas Mobile Gallary, near Birre Ki Chakki, Indri Road, Ladwa through its proprietor/authorized sitgnatory.
2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044 through its Managing Director.
3. Bansal Communication (Authorized: Samsung Mobile Service Centre), near Geeta Dwar, Pipli Chowk, Kurukshetra through its proprietor.
4. Samsung Authorized Service Centre, Grover Computers and Electronics, Ist Floor, Adj, Madhu Hotel, Yamunanagar-135001.

 

..………OPs.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

                                                                                               

Before           Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                       Ms. Neelam, Member.

                       Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

 

Present :       Sh. Bir Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                       OPs already exparte.

                                         

ORDER

 

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Suresh Kumar against Vikas Mobile Gallery and others, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile set make Samsung J7 Pro bearing IMEI No.358674083954958 from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.19,000/- vide invoice No.1446 dt. 28.02.2018.  It is alleged that from the very beginning, the said mobile set was having manufacturing defect and after some time of its purchase, the touch screen of mobile set was not working properly and having heating problem.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.3 and the Op No.3 after checking the mobile set told that there is a problem in display of the mobile set and on the asking of Op No.3, the complainant reached at the centre of Op No.4.  The Op No.4 said that they will replace the display of the said mobile if the complainant obtained the scheme of one year extended warranty by paying Rs.1109/- and also assured to rectify the other problems.  It is further alleged that the complainant agreed with the same and paid Rs.1109/- to the Op No.4 but despite repair, the defects were not repaired from the said mobile set.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with the new one with extended warranty or to refund the entire price of the mobile set and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5500/- as litigation charges.   

3.             Upon notice, the Ops did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 26.10.2018.

4.             The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill dt. 28.02.2018 as Ex.C1, copy of bill dt. 14.04.2018 as Ex.C2 and copy of Samsung Smart Warranty Certificate as Ex.C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.      

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

6.             From the cash memo, Ex.C1 it is clear that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.19,900/-.  The grievance of the complainant is that the said mobile set became defective from the very beginning with the problems that the touch screen of mobile set was not working properly and heating problem etc. and despite repair, the defects were not removed from the said mobile set.  The complainant has supported his versions by affidavit, Ex.CW1/A so set out by him in the complaint.  Besides the affidavit, the complainant has tendered into evidence the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3.  Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the Ops have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and there is gross deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to replace the mobile set of the complainant with the new one of the same value as purchased by the complainant and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges.  The complainant is directed to deposit the old defective mobile set alongwith accessories with the Ops.  All the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:29.11.2018.  

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.