ADDITIONAL BENCH

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.104 of 2021

Date of Institution : 22.03.2021

Date of Reserve : 14.09.2022

Date of Decision : 28.09.2022

Sachin Singh aged about 26 years S/o Sh.Nanku Singh, resident of

House No.15/16, Old Grain Market, Sangrur.

….Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two

Horizon Center, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF, PH-V,

Gurugram (Haryana) through its Managing Director.

2. M/s Gaurav Communications, 1^st Floor, Inside Gaushala

Road, Near Railway Chowk, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

3. Singla Mobile Care, Near Baba Pir, Sangrur Road,

Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur through

its proprietor.

……..Respondents/Opposite parties

First

Appeal

under

Section

41

of

the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the

order

dated

01.02.2021

of

the

District

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member

Present:-

For the appellant

: Sh.Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate

For respondent No.1

: Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate

For respondents No.2&3

: Ex-parte

First Appeal No 104 of 2021

2

HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

This

appeal

has

been

preferred

by

the

appellant/Complainant-Sachin Singh against the order dated

01.02.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, Sangrur whereby the complaint filed by the

appellant/complainant-Sachin Singh was allowed and opposite

parties were directed to replace the glass/screen of the mobile set,

in question, and to make the mobile set in working condition.

2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties

will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District

Commission.

3. In nutshell, the complaint of the complainant before the

District Commission is that he purchased a mobile handset on

07.11.2018 from opposite party No.3 who assured him that the

mobile i.e. Galaxy Note 9 (128 GB) is with special feature of gorilla

glass, which is a scratch free and unbreakable even if it hits with

hard surface or even if it hits with the hammer. The complainant

was also showed some recordings of the said mobile phones.

Accordingly, the he purchased mobile i.e. Samsung Galaxy Note 9

(128 GB) from opposite party No.3 against invoice No.2762, dated

07.11.2018 for a sum of Rs.61,900/-. On 09.12.2018, while

complainant was sitting in the office and when he tried to pick up a

call then the mobile accidentally fell from his hand and when he

picked up the phone, in question, he was shocked to see that the

screen of the mobile set was broken and the mobile set became

non-functional. Thereafter, the complainant approached opposite

First Appeal No 104 of 2021

3

party No.3 with the request of replacement of the mobile set

because at the time of selling the mobile set the opposite party has

specifically told about the features of gorilla glass and on the

assurance of the opposite party No.3 complainant purchased the

mobile phone. However, complainant was advised to approach

opposite party No.2 and on the next date, he approached opposite

party No.2 and showed the mobile set and requested for its

replacement but opposite party No.2 refused to replace the same

by saying that broken display is not covered even in the terms and

conditions of the policy and refused to entertain the request of the

complainant. The complainant also get the photocopy of the Job

Sheet

dated

10.12.2018

and

made

the

endorsement

of

misrepresentation. A handsome amount was spent by the

complainant on the purchase of the mobile set but the same was

broken within one month from its purchase. It is asserted that the

mobile set has not been replaced even though the same is within

the warranty period, which caused harassment and inconvenience

to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document