Punjab

Sangrur

CC/11/2016

Shubham Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vishnu Mobile Plaza - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajinder Goyal

09 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  11

                                                Instituted on:    01.01.2016

                                                Decided on:       09.08.2016

 

Shubham Goyal son of Shri Gopal Chand Goyal R/O SCF No.30, Opposite Market Committee Office, Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Vishnu Mobile Plaza, Geeta Bhawan Road, Sunam, District Sangrur through its proprietor/Auth. Signatory.

2.             M/s. Gaurav Communications, Street No.2, Near Railway Chowk, Gaushala Road, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

3.             Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Estate, new Delhi-110 044 through its Managing Director.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Rajinder Goyal, Adv.

For OPs No.1&2       :               Exparte.

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

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Shubham Goyal, 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 mobile set bearing IMEI number 351665/06/906908/1 for Rs.20,000/- vide invoice dated 20.03.2015 from OP number 1, which was having one year warranty/guarantee. It is further averred that after few months of its purchase, the mobile set started to give problems. like blue tooth and wi-fi connectivity and also used to get automatically switch off, as such, the complainant approached OP number 1, who advised the complainant to approach OP number 2, as such the complainant approached OP number 2 on 20.5.2015 and the OP number 2 kept the mobile set and returned the same after one week with an assurance that it will not give any problem in future.  It is further averred that thereafter the mobile set did not work properly and suffered some problems, like auto restart, touch screen not working when battery gets low. Thereafter the complainant approached the OP number 2 on 19.11.2015, who kept the mobile set with it and returned the set on next day  saying that he has updated the software and also told the complainant to use the set for some times.  Thereafter the complainant again approached OP number 2 on 28.11.2015 and the OP number 2 kept the mobile set in question for observation and the same was returned after some days with the same problem.  The complainant again requested the Ops either to replace the mobile set in question with a new one or to refund the price of the mobile set as it was defective one, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the mobile set with a new one or in the alternative to refund him the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.20,000/- 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 2 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 and 2 were  proceeded exparte.

 

3.             In the reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the Forum as he has concealed the true and material facts. It is further stated that the complainant for the first time has submitted his handset with the OP number 2 on 20.5.2015 with the problem of Bluetooth and wife problems, which were duly rectified.  Thereafter the complainant submitted the hand set on 19.11.2015 with ‘touch not working and auto restart problem which was again removed. It is further stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the performance of the mobile phone depends upon the physical handling of the product. It is stated that the complainant has not set out any legitimate ground entitling him for replacement of the mobile set with damages and litigation expenses. It has been further averred that in the present case the hand set in question has been duly repaired and rectified as and when the complainant brought the mobile set for the same.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP number 1 for Rs.20,000/-. However, it is denied that the mobile set suffered any problem after few months of the purchase, as the problems in the mobile set were rectified whenever the complainant approached OP number 2.  It has been further averred that the OP is only liable to repair the product in question under warranty terms and conditions.  Lastly, the OP number 3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of warranty card, Ex.C-3 copy of bill, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7 copies of job sheets and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced  Ex.OP3/1 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.               Ex.C-3 is the copy of the invoice dated 20.03.2015 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.20,000/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 1.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant became defective as there was the problem of blue tooth and wi-fi connectivity, which was duly rectified by Op number 2 on 19.5.2015 as admitted by the OP number 3 in its reply. But, again the problems such as auto restart, touch screen not working when battery gets low and other problems arose in the mobile set on 28.11.2015 and a bare perusal of the job order sheet dated 28.11.2015, Ex.C-6 clearly reveals that ‘50% battery touch not working and auto restart problem was there’ in the mobile set and the op number 2 kept the mobile set with it for repairs. It is an admitted fact that the mobile set in question was repaired by OP number 2, which was having auto restart, touch screen problems.  In the present case, the OP number 1 and 2 choose to remain exparte and even did not appear to deny the allegations of the complainant levelled in the complaint. Further the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex.C-1 to support his contention.  The learned counsel for OP number 3 has also produced only an affidavit of Anindya Bose, Deputy General Manager and no other documentary evidence has been produced on the file to show that the mobile set in question was not having the manufacturing problems in the mobile set. In the circumstances, it is clear that the mobile set in question supplied to the complainant is defective one which is beyond repairs.      Reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh State Commission in Krishna Kumar Sahu versus Manager, Jai Shri Electronics and others 2010(1) CPR 149, wherein the complainant alleged defects in the mobile set, as the defects arose in the mobile set during the warranty period and was not repaired within a reasonable time, it was held to be  a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It has been further held that the OPs were under obligation to fix such defects within a reasonable time, as such, the Hon'ble Commission ordered the refund of the amount to the complainant.  So, similar is the position in the present case, as the OP number 2 and 3 neither repaired the mobile set in question nor replaced the same nor made the refund of the amount of the cost  of the  mobile set,  as such, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs number 2 and 3 to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with a new one of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- being the cost of the mobile set along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 01.01.2016 till realisation, however, after receiving the old mobile set in question along with all its accessories under proper receipt from the complainant.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, harassment and 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.

                August 9, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member