| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/15/132 of 25.6.2015 Decided on: 5.5.2016 Malkit Singh S/o Dharampal Singh R/o #67/3 Azad Nagar, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus 1. Xpert Communication City Center, 1st Floor, Bhupindra Road, Patiala through its Manager. 2. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited 2nd ,3rd and 4th Floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Squre, Old Golf Road, Gurgaon Sector-43, Gurgaon through its Managing Director. …………….Ops Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh. A.P.S.Rajput, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Arun Bansal, Advocate For Op No.1: Exparte For Op No.2: Sh.J.S.Sandhu,Advocate ORDER NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant purchased one mobile phone make Samsung SM-G360HZWDINS bearing IMEI No.3573860646999525 from Shiv Shakti Appliances vide bill No.138 dated 19.3.2015 for an amount of Rs.9200/-.It is averred that from the very beginning of the said purchase, the mobile phone developed a problem in respect of call drop, speaker problem etc. The complainant took the mobile phone to Op no.1, the authorized service centre of the company who handed over the same back after necessary repair but the same did not work properly. The complainant again submitted the mobile phone to Op no.1 on 11.4.2015 and OP no.1 returned the mobile phone as it was. Again on 16.4.2015, the complainant deposited the mobile phone with Op no.1 and till date the mobile phone is lying with Op no.1.The complainant approached Op no.1 time and again for the replacement of the mobile phone with a new one or to refund the price of the mobile phone but Op No.1 kept on giving false assurances and ultimately it flatly refused to do the needful.
- On 5.5.2015, the complainant served a legal notice upon Ops but to no effect. The complainant underwent a lot of harassment and mental agony at the hands of Ops. Ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) .
- On notice, Op no.1 failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against exparte. Whereas Op no2 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased one Samsung mobile phone for Rs.9200/- on 19.3.2015. The Op no.2 has submitted that the complainant approached Op no.1 on 7.4.2015 with the problem of speaker and the same was rectified and the mobile phone was returned to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant never approached Op no.1 on 11.4.2015 or again on 16.4.2015 as is alleged by the complainant. After denying all other allegations mentioned in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and his counsel closed the evidence. Whereas counsel for Op no.2 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, Sworn affidavit of Sh. Anindya Bose, SGM,Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd and closed the evidence.
- Op no.2 filed written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
- Ex.C1 is the Invoice dated 19.3.2015, whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone for Rs.9200/-.Ex.C2 is the job sheet dated 7.4.2015, whereby the complainant deposited the mobile phone with Op no.1 with the problem of speaker which was rectified and the mobile phone was returned to the complainant. But as the mobile phone was not working properly, the complainant again deposited the mobile phone with Op no.1 on 11.4.2015 but the Op returned the same without rectifying the problem. Again on 16.4.2015 the complainant deposited the mobile phone with Op no.1 and since 16.4.2015 the mobile phone is lying with Op no.1 who has neither rectified the defect nor returned it to the complainant despite repeated requests made by the complainant.
- Whereas OP no.2 has submitted that the complainant deposited the mobile phone with Op no.1 on 7.4.2015 and Op no.1 rectified the problem and thereafter the complainant never approached Op no.1 regarding any problem in the mobile phone.
- Though the complainant has not produced any job sheet dated 16.4.2015 on record but he has written in his sworn affidavit that since 16.4.2015, the mobile phone is lying with Op no.1 who has neither rectified the defect nor replaced it with a new one. Moreover, failure on the part of Op no.1 to contest the claim of the complainant would go to show the indifferent attitude of Op no.1 to redress the grievance of the complainant. As the problem occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period, Ops were bound to rectify the same which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency of service on their part .
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to Ops no.1&2 to rectify the defect in the mobile phone up to the satisfaction of the complainant and if that is not possible to replace the mobile phone with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.9200/- i.e. the price of the mobile phone. Ops no.1&2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- for the harassment and mental agony undergone by the complainant and also to pay Rs.1500/- as cost of litigation. The order be complied by Ops no.1&2 within a period of 45 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Pronounced Dated: 5.5.2016 Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta A.P.S.Rajput Member Member President | |
