DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 1577/2015
D.No.__________________ Dated: ____________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
KESHAV MURARKA S/o SH. SANJAY MURARKA,
R/o AG-250, 2ND FLOOR,
NEAR SYNDICATE BANK,
SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. ADITYA INFOCOM PVT. LTD.,
C-3/117, PH-II, NEAR PRESIDIUM SCHOOL,
OPP.-D.R. NURSING HOME (PRAGATI MARKET),
ASHOK VIHAR, DELHI.
2. SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,
(HEAD OFFICE), 2ND, 3RD& 4THFLOOR, TOWER-C,
VIPUL TECH SQUARE, SECTOR-43,
GOLF COURSE ROAD,
GURGAON, HARYANA-122002.… OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM :SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of decision:30.01.2018
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that he purchased a Samsung Grand Prime 4G mobile
CC No. 1577/2015 Page 1 of 6
handset for Rs.9,800/- in cash from Gift Shoppe, 44, AL Market, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi vide bill/cash memono. 6248 dated 21.10.2015. The complainant further alleged that there was some problem in touch from first day, although overall it was working fine but on 29.10.2015, the touch did not work at all and the complainant visited the Service Centre of OP-2 i.e. OP-1 and OP-1 replaced the touch same day and returned the mobile handset back after changing the touch within 2 hours but after replacement of touch too and the mobile handset did not work at all. On 30.10.2015, the complainant visited again to OP-1 and engineer Sh. Ravi Kumar removed the tempered glass and said that it works without tempered and he removed that tempered glass without the complainant’s consent and he did not check and returned the complainant’s mobile handset and when the complainant asked for replacement of the mobile handset, he signed on previous day the complaint receipt that mobile handset cannot be replaced. On 03.11.2015, the complainant faced the problem again and visited OP-1 and Sh. Ravi checked the mobile handset and said that there is some problem in the mobile handset and it will take time to repair it and they told to the complainant to leave the mobile handset there and they will inform the complainant by call once it is repaired. On 04.11.2015, the complainant received a call from
CC No. 1577/2015 Page 2 of 6
OP-1 and they said some part needs to be replaced and that is not available in the store of OP-1. On 05.11.2015, the complainant received a call again and they told the complainant to collect the mobile handset as it has been repaired and the complainant collected the complainant mobile handset on 06.11.2015 and the complainant was not at all satisfied with OP’s response and the complainant has not used the mobile handset from 06.11.2015 onwards till now. The complainant further alleged that the complainant sent a letter to the OPs but no response has been received from the side of OPs and amounts to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OP to replace the mobile handset as well as compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental pain and agony.
3. The OPs have been contesting the case of the complainant and have filed their common written statement thereby submitted that the complaint is false, frivolous, baseless and is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. OPs further submitted that the complainant had purchased the said mobile handset of Rs.9,800/- on 21.10.2015 from Gift Shoppe and there is neither any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset or any deficiency of service on part of OPs. OPs further submitted that in order to provide the customer service, the OPs have taken best possible
CC No. 1577/2015 Page 3 of 6
method to resolve the complaint but the complainant is adament to be compensated and there is no manufacturing defect in the product.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the submissions of OPs which have been taken in written statement of OPs.
5. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of bill/cash memono. 6248 dated 21.10.2015 for purchase of mobile set for total value of Rs.9,800/-, copies of job sheets dated 29.10.2015 & 03.11.2015, copy of customer information dated 03.11.2015 and copies of courier receipts.
6. On the other hand, on behalf of OPsMs. Anindya Bose, authorized representative of OPs filed her affidavit which is on identical lines as per case of OPs in written statement. OPs have also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. There is no cogent evidence to support the defence of OPs. On the other hand, as per the written statement OPs have admitted the version of the complainant.
8. On perusal of the record, we find that complainant made complaint
CC No. 1577/2015 Page 4 of 6
of his mobile to the service enter of OP-1within one week of the purchase of the mobile handset i.e. within warranty period. Though OP-1 had tried to rectify the defect which has been occurring in the mobile phone again and again, it was the duty of the OP-1 to rectify the defect once for all or to replace the product. Frequent recurring of the defect in the mobile as revealed from the various complaints of the complainant clearly shows that there is some inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile which OP-1 has failed to rectify. A customer/consumer is not expected to file complaints frequently in respect of new product purchased. It is expected that the new product purchased is free from all sorts of defect in the product. Accordingly, OPsare held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Accordingly, both the OPsjointly or severally are directed as under:
a) To replacethe mobile handset of the complainant on return of the disputed mobile handset with all the accessories and original bill.
b) To pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant which includes cost of litigation.
10. The above order shall be complied by the OPs jointly or severally within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order and the complainant return the mobile phone with accessories, failing
CC No. 1577/2015 Page 5 of 6
which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1 fails to comply with the order within 30 days, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 30th day of January, 2018.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
