DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.345/16

Mr. Vinod Singh Tariyal

S/o Daljeet Singh Tariyal

R/o E-184, Street No. 5

South Pandev Nagar,

Durga Mandir, Patparganj,

Delhi-110091                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

1. Aarco One

K-45, Lajpat Nagar-II,

New Delhi-110024.

2. Samsung India Electronics pvt. Ltd.

20^th and 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre,

Golf Course Road, Sector-43. DLF PH-V,

Guraon, Haryana-122202

3. Varun Enterprises,

WA-84 Ground Floor,

Shakar Pur, New Delhi-110092

4. SSK Retails Pvt. Ltd.

7, Akshay Complex, Off Dhole Patil Road,

Pune-411001.

5. Leeshan Retails Pvt. Ltd.

4, SSK Saphire Plaza, Pune Airport Road,

Near Symbiosis Collage, Pune-4110014                    ….Opposite Parties

                                                          Date of Institution        : 25.10.16    Date of Order                 : 05.12.19

Coram:

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

1. In the present case, complainant purchased a mobile phone from Aarco One (OP-1) which is of the make of Samsung. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) is the manufacturer of Samsung phone. Bill receipt of the said phone dated 24.10.2015 amounting to Rs.14,899/- is annexed as Annexure-1 (colly). It is averred that the complainant met with an accident and the said mobile fell from his pocket due to which the screen got damaged.
2. The complainant registered the complaint with Syska Customer Care Cell (OP-4 and OP-5). It is next stated that as per the instructions from the Syska Customer Care, the mobile phone was deposited with Varun Enterprises (OP-3) which is the customer care department of OP-2.
3. It is next submitted that the mobile phone is still in the custody of OP-3. The complainant has provided all the relevant documents and also duly uploaded the same on the website of OP-4 and OP-5 which were requested by OPs for passing the insurance claims and getting the phone repaired. However, despite fulfilling the requirements for passing the insurance claim and getting the phone repaired no action has been taken by the OPs so far.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has approached this forum with the prayers to direct OPs to pay Rs.14,899/- towards the cost of the phone with interest @ 12% per annum. Further it is prayed that OPs be directed to repair the phone which is lying in the custody of OP-3 and OPs be directed to pay Rs.51,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

2.      Upon notices being served OP-1, OP-3 and OP-4 chose not to contest the complaint. OP-1 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 06.03.2017.

3.      OP-2 and OP-3 contested the complaint stating inter-alia that complainant purchased Samsung mobile phone on 24.10.2015 from OP-1 for total sale consideration of Rs.14,899/-. It is next submitted that the complainant had also purchased a third party insurance of OP-4 and OP-5 from OP-1 for consideration of Rs.899/-. It is further submitted that the complainant has not provided any substantial proof of submitting his phone with OP-3. OP-2 further states that no manufacturing defect has been alleged and it is ready to repair the product as per the terms and condition of OP-2. It is, thus, prayed that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary cost.

4.      Averments made in the complaint against OP-2 and OP-3 are reiterated by the complainant in the rejoinder. Evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the complainant. Evidence of Ms. Anindya Bose, Authorized representative has been filed on behalf OP-2.

5.      Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant and OP-2 & OP-3.

6.      Arguments on behalf of the complainant and OP-2 & OP-3 are heard and material placed on record is perused.

7.      Averments made in the complaint qua OP-1, OP-4 and OP-5 and evidence led by the complainant have remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.

8.      Complainant purchased a Samsung mobile phone on 24.10.2015 which carries a one year warranty. To secure his gadget the complainant also purchased insurance from Syska and paid Rs.899/- towards consideration to OP-4 and OP-5. As submitted, the complainant met with an accident in February 2016 and the handset in question fell from his pocket due to which the screen got damaged. Complainant deposited the phone at the service centre i.e. OP-3 for repairs. Copy of the receipt i.e. Customer Information Slip is appended at page-13 of the complaint.

9.      OP-2 has admitted that the said phone is under warranty and it is willing to repair the phone as per the terms and conditions of OP-2. Further it is noticed that having the phone insured which covers the physical / fluid damage the insurance company / OP-4 has not given the claim to the complainant.

10.    OP-1 though is a vendor but the representative of OP-4 and OP-5 were operating from the showroom of OP-1. The receipts of the phone appended at page-8 with the complaint shows that cost price of handset and the insurance premium is composite and issued by OP-1. In view of the fact that the phone was insured and was within the warranty period, we are of the opinion that OP-1 OP-3, OP-4 and OP-5 are all held liable jointly and severally for gross deficiency. The above said OPs are directed to repair the phone and pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental harassment and cost of litigation.

11. OPs are directed to repair the phone in question of the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the OPs shall become liable to pay interest @ 8% p.a. on the Rs.10,000/- from the filing of complaint till realization.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 05.12.19.