Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/26

Pinka Alias Surinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chaudhary Elecronics & Anothers - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Mandeep Moudgil, Adv

14 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                               Consumer Complaint No. :   26 of 11.03.2015

                               Date of decision                 :  14.07.2015

 

Pinka @ Surinder Singh, aged about 35 years, son of  Late Sh. Mangal Singh, resident of Deol Colony, Chamkaur Sahib, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib District Rupnagar.

                                                                             ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Chaudhry Electronic, Main Bazar, Ghanauli, Tehsil and District Rupnagar through its Proprietor Rupinder Pal Saini.

2.  Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Limited, B-1, Sector 81, Phase II, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

                                                                            ....Opposite Parties

 

                                        Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant

Sh. Ankush Sharma Advocate, counsel for the Opposite Party No.1

Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

 

 

ORDER

                                       MRS. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

                   Sh. Pinka @ Surinder Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)  against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To repair or replace the hand set in question with a new one or in the alternative, its price i.e. Rs.8500/- to him,

ii)      To pay him Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental, tension, agony and harassment caused by the O.Ps,

 

iii)     To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses,

 

 

2.                 In brief, the case of the complainant is that, he had purchased a Samsung Galaxy S DUOS 2 white colour mobile hand set from the O.P. No.1 for a sum of Rs.8500/- vide bill No.20 dated 29.06.2014. After purchase of the said mobile set it worked properly only for one and half month and thereafter, it started creating problem. He took same to the O.P. No.1, who after examining it told that there was some manufacturing defect in it and sent the same to the work shop of the O.P. No.2 i.e. service centre. Thereafter, he visited the O.P. No.1 a number of times for getting his mobile set after proper repair, but he always made pretext that the said mobile set had not been received back after its repair from the Service Centre of O.P. No.2.  However,  before filing of instant complaint a week, the O.P. No.1 had returned the said mobile set to him by saying that the same had not been repaired and he would have to pay Rs.5000/- to the O.Ps. for its repair. It is stated that the said mobile set was having said warranty of one year, but the O.Ps. had refused to repair the same within the said warranty period. As such, they have committed deficiency in service, due to which he has been deprived of the use of the said mobile set and has suffered mental tension, agony and harassment. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                 On being put to notice, the O.P. No.1  filed written statement, taking preliminary objections; that the complaint being false and fabricated is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the same. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from the O.P. No.1 vide bill No.20 dated 29.06.2014. it is denied that the complainant had ever  come to the O.P. No.1 for any kind of problem in the said mobile set, as such, there was no manufacturing defect in it for sending the same to the Service Centre of O.P. No.2. It is submitted that Samsung Company is the manufacture of the said mobile set and the O.P. No.1 only sells the sealed packed mobile set,  in his shop and no repair is made at the shop of the answering O.P.  If any problem arises in any hand set, then it is the company’s customer care, which resolves the same. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof with heavy costs.

 

4.                None having appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 04.05.2015.

 

5.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex. C1, photocopies of receipt dated 29.06.2014 Ex.C2, warranty card Ex.C3, and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1  tendered affidavit of Sh.Rupinder Pal Singh Saini, Proprietor Ex.OP-1/A firm and closed the evidence.

 

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and contesting O.P. No.1 and gone through the record of the file carefully.

7.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the mobile set, which the complainant had purchased from O.P. No.1 vide bill No.20 dated 29.06.2014, as is evident from Ex.C2, got defective (within warranty) after one and a half month of its purchase. He took the mobile set to the O.P. No.1 and he told him that there was manufacturing defect in it and he sent the mobile in question to the O.P. No.1 i.e. Service Centre for rectification of defect occurred in it. The complainant had visited the O.P. No.1 a number of times for getting the mobile in question back after its repair but the O.P. No.1 put off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately returned the mobile in question to him by saying that the same had not been repaired and he would have to pay Rs.5000/- to the O.Ps. for its repair. The learned counsel for the further submitted that the mobile in question was within warranty period, it was the duty of the O.Ps. for its rectification defect occurred in it as free of cost. The O.Ps. are, thus, deficient in providing service and they be directed to either to replace the defective mobile set or to return the cost thereof along with interest and also to pay compensation for harassment and litigation expenses, as prayed in the complaint.

8.                The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 vehemently argued that neither the complainant had ever come to the O.P. No.1 for any problem in the mobile set in question, nor the O.P. No.1 had examine the mobile set in question or told to the complainant that there was some manufacturing defect in it. The O.P. No.1 only sold the sealed /packed mobile phone in his shop and warranty provided by the service centre of the company and if the complainant had any grievance then he would have gone directly to the Service Centre and the  O.P. No.1 was nothing to do in that matter. There has been no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1, consequently, the complaint against it, being without any merit, be dismissed with heavy costs.  

9.       Admittedly, on 29.06.2014, the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from the O.P. No.1, who in lieu of that issued a bill/invoice Ex.C2. The mobile set in question was within warranty period at the time of filing of the instant complaint, which is evident from Ex.C3. The warranty/guarantee is provided by the manufacturer and seller is not responsible for the same. In case, any defect had occurred in the mobile set then the customer for its rectification can go to the service centre himself. There is no document on record to prove that the complainant had ever visited to the service centre (OP No.2) for rectification of the mobile set in question. Moreover, it was the duty of the complainant to produce cogent and convincing evidence before this Forum to prove that there any manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. Facing with this situation, we are of the view is that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case against any of the O.Ps.

10.   In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint against the O.Ps. with no order of cost.

11.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated .14.07.2015                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.