BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.267/17.
Date of instt.:10.10.2017.
Date of Decision:29.5.2018
Dilbag s/o Shri Dalip, r/o Bahmniwala alias Rajpura, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Vasu Telecom Shop No.56, Palika Bazaar, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Kaithal.
- Samsung Care Centre, 2nd Floor, Padma City Mall through its Proprietor/Partner.
- Samsung India Electronics Registered Officer A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower Mohan Cooperative Industrial State, New Delhi.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Jagmal Singh, President.
Shri Parmod Kumar, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased Samsung mobile B-335 from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.209 dt. 31.3.2017 for Rs.3180/-. It is further alleged that on 16.9.2017, the display of said mobile became defective and stopped to function. It is further alleged that he visited to OP No.2 and requested to remove the defects, but OP No.2 demanded Rs.1450/- for its repair. It is further alleged that OP No.2 kept the mobile for ten days and thereafter, OP No.2 took Rs.600/- but could not repair the mobile and he returned defective mobile and returned Rs.500/- and kept Rs.100/- for checking charges. It is further alleged that he visited to OP No.2 for taking his mobile, but OP No.2 refused to repair the same though the mobile was within warranty. This way, the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared before this forum and filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report for the perusal of this Forum; that the answering OPs has established a number of service center across the country in order to provide impeccable after sale services to its customers and if there is any issue in the said unit, the complainant might approach any of the service centre but instead complainant without any cause unnecessarily has field the present complaint; that the answering OPs provides one year warranty on the unit and warranty means in case of any problem, on account of manufacturing defect or faulty workmanship with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per warranty policy; that the OPs were and are still ready to repair the unit as per warranty policy, so there is no deficiency on the part of OPs. On merits, the rest of the contents are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; document Ex.C1 and closed evidence on 18.01.2018. On the other hand, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A; document Annexure R1 and closed evidence on 27.4.2018.
4. We have heard the complainant and ld. counsel for the OP and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. The complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that he purchased Samsung mobile from OP No.1 and on 16.9.2017, the display of said mobile became defective and stopped to function. He further argued that he visited to OP No.2 to remove the defects, who demanded Rs.1450/- for its repair and took Rs.600/- but could not repair the mobile and the OP No.2 returned defective mobile alongwith Rs.500/-. The OP No.2 kept Rs.100/- for checking charges. He further argued that he visited OP No.2 for taking his mobile, but OP No.2 refused to repair the same though the mobile was within warranty. This way, the OPs are deficient in service.
6. Ld. counsel for OPs has argued that the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the mobile set in question was having manufacturing/technical fault. He further argued that the answering OPs provides one year warranty and warranty means in case of any problem, on account of manufacturing defect or faulty workmanship with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per warranty policy. He further argued that the OPs were and are still ready to repair the unit as per warranty policy, so there is no deficiency on the part of OPs.
7. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant had purchased Samsung mobile set B-355 from Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.3180/- vide Invoice No.209 dt. 31.3.2017 (Ex.C1). The complainant has not produced any such evidence on the basis of which, it can be said the mobile set in question has a manufacturing defect. As per the complainant, the mobile set in question was having a problem and as per pleading of the OPs, the OPs are ready to repair the same as per warranty policy. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the mobile set was within the warranty period. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs have not resolved the grievance of the complainant and hence, the OPs are deficient.
8. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint against the OPs and direct the OPs to repair the defective mobile set of the complainant free of costs. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.1100/- to the complainant on account of compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.29.05.2018.
(Parmod Kumar), (Jagmal Singh),
Member. President.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for OPs.
At this stage, the complainant again come present and stated that he wants to argue the case today. Argument of complainant heard. To come up on 29.5.2018 for pronouncement of the order.
Dated:24.05.2018. Member. President.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for OPs.
Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:29.5.2018. Member. President.
