Punjab

Sangrur

CC/215/2019

Nisha Chawla - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Time - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ashish Kumar Grover

01 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 215

 Instituted on:   16.05.2019

                                                                         Decided on:     01.12.2022

 

Nisha Chawla W/o Sh. Mohit Chawla, R/O # 56, Partap Nagar, Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

 

1.     National Time, Court Road, Sangrur through its Prop/Partner.

2.     Gaurav Communications, Gaushalla Road, Near Railway Chowk, Sangrur through its Prop/Partner.

3.     Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 7^th & 8^th Floor, IFC-1, Tower, 61, Nehru Palace, New Delhi through its MD/CEO 110 019.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:                   : Shri  Devi Lal, Adv.              

For the OP No.1&2.            : Exparte.

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

 

 

Quorum                                          

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER      

1.             Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties pleading that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by purchasing a mobile set make Samsung Galaxy A6 Black for Rs.21,990/-  from OP number 1 vide invoice number 396 dated 25.5.2018.    The grievance of complainant is that from the very beginning the mobile set in question is not working properly and is suffering with the problem of hanging and leaving the network and the battery back up is also very poor. Further case of complainant is that she visited OP number 2 and apprised about the problems in the mobile set in question, but of no use. Further case of the complainant is that again in the month of March, 2019 the mobile set suffered with another problem ‘some times option key not working, set hanging and touch not working properly” and approached OP number 2 for removal of the problems in the mobile set, but of no use.  Again the complainant visited OP number 2 in April, 2019 to get the problems removed in the mobile set, but of no avail. Though the complainant requested the OPs to replace the mobile set in question with a new one, but all in vain. The complainant has alleged further that there is manufacturing defects in the mobile set, due to which the defects in the mobile set are developing very shortly.  It is stated further that the mobile set in question has developed defects during the warranty period, as such it should be replaced with a new one.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to refund the purchase amount of the mobile set i.e. Rs.21,990/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment, to further to pay Rs.15,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that opposite party number 1 and 2 did not appear despite service, as such they were proceeded against exparte.

3.             In reply filed by the OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as she has concealed material and true facts from this Commission. The mobile set is perfectly working as it has never been submitted by the complainant with the OP number 2 with any kind of problem.  The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging totally false facts and by concealing the true facts. It is stated further that the complainant is not entitled to any relief. It is further stated that the complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence on record.   On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied by the OP. Even the purchase of the mobile set from OP number 1 has been denied.   It has been denied that the mobile set was ever submitted to the OP number 2 for repairs of the same. Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

4.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is a consumer of the OPs by purchasing a mobile set make Samsung Galaxy A6 Black for Rs.21,990/-  from OP number 1 vide invoice number 396 dated 25.5.2018.    Further it is contended that from the very beginning,  the mobile set in question is not working properly and is suffering with the problem of hanging and leaving the network and the battery back up is also very poor. Further case of complainant is that he visited OP number 2 and apprised about the problems in the mobile set in question, but of no use. Further the learned counsel for complainant has contended that again in the month of March, 2019 the mobile set suffered with another problem ‘some time option key not working, set hanging and touch not working properly” and approached OP number 2, but of no use.  Again the complainant visited OP number 2 in April, 2019 to get the problems removed in the mobile set, but of no avail. Though the complainant requested the OPs to replace the mobile set in question with a new one, but all in vain.    The learned counsel for the complainant has argued further that there is manufacturing defects in the mobile set, due to which the defects in the mobile set are developing very shortly, as such has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3 has argued vehemently that the complainant has never approached OP number 2 for repairs of the mobile set in question nor the complainant has produced any documentary evidence to support her contention in this case. It is further argued by the learned counsel for OP number 3 that the complainant is not entitled to any relief nor any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product is on record.

7.             To prove his case, the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit wherein she has stated that the mobile set in question suffers from manufacturing defects. Ex.C-2 is the copy of invoice which shows that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.21,990/- for purchase of the mobile set in question on 25.5.2018. To rebut this contention of the complainant, nothing has been produced by OP number 2 nor any expert report has been produced on record.  In the circumstances, we find that the OP number 3 has miserably failed to establish on record that the mobile set in question is in perfect working condition, rather the complainant has successful in proving the case that the mobile set suffers from manufacturing defects, due to which the complainant had to visit again and again to OP number 2.  Further nothing has been produced by Op number 2 to rebut the allegations of the complainant nor OP number 2 appeared before this Commission.   As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct Ops to replace the mobile set in question with a new one of the same model or to refund to the complainant the cost of mobile set i.e. an amount of Rs.21,990/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 16.05.2019 till realization in full. However, it is made clear that the complainant shall be bound to return the defective mobile set alongwith all its accessories/attachments to the OPs at the time of receiving the amount of the mobile set. We further direct Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses. 

9.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

10.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        December 1, 2022.

 

        (Kanwaljeet Singh)  (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                 Member            Member                    President