Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/214/2022

SOMBEER - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMBICA ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No.214/22

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Sombeer S/o Shri Ram Mehar R/o H.No. 777, Gali No. 24-A, Swatantra Nagar, Narela, Delhi 110040	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.       3.	Ambica Electonics 2153, Bawana Road Narela, Delhi 110040   Mangla Agencies T-131, Indra Colony Narela, Delhi 110040   Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., B-1, Sector 81 Phase II Noida Gautam Budh Nagar	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

07.09.2018 10.04.2023 02.08.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 17.06.2018 Complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile phone J60G/DS-GOLD (J6) from the Opposite Party No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 13,500/- with one year warranty. The said mobile phone was manufactured by Opposite Party No. 3. Complainant was shocked when he found that there was not clarity in screen camera and video. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 1 immediately and the official of Opposite Party No. 1 suggested approaching service centre for DOA.  The Complainant approached the service centre, but unfortunately the service centre has no DOA service. After that the Complainant had approached Opposite Party No. 3 and the official of Opposite Party No. 3 suggested to handover the handset with service centre of Opposite Party No 2 for DOA.  After that the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No. 2 and requested them to issue a DOA but the official of Opposite Party No. 2 received the handset for DOA against job sheet on 21.06.2018. Opposite Party No. 2 agreed to return the said mobile handset within five days. After 20 days the Opposite Party No. 2 returned the handset without replacement/repairing. Thereafter, the Complainant argued with the Opposite Party No. 2 and official of Opposite Party No. 2 told that there was no problem in the said handset. Thereafter the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 3 but the official of Opposite Party No. 3 gave a fake and false assurance. Thereafter, the Complainant visited the Opposite Party No. 2 many times and requested them to issue a DOA of handset in warranty period, but all the request of the Complainant were fallen in deaf ears. Complainant also sent emails to the Opposite Parties but they did not give any positive response. Thereafter, Complainant approached several times to the Opposite Parties for repairing the said mobile handset as it is duly covered under the warranty period, but Opposite Parties kept on avoiding the matter on the one pretext to the other. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to refund the cost of handset i.e. Rs. 13,500/- with interest from the date of purchase of mobile handset, Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 1,100/- on account of litigation charges.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.03.2019.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 3

3. Opposite Party No. 3 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainant had not provided any documentary proof in support of the allegations made by the Complainant in the present complaint. It is alleged that the present complaint is vague, baseless and with mala fide intention. The Complainant had made misconceived and baseless allegations of deficiency in service without any documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. It is stated that the Complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act. It is admitted that the Complainant had purchased a mobile handset from the Opposite Party   No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 13,500/-. It is alleged that on 21.06.2018 Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 3 regarding some problem and engineer of Opposite Party No. 3 inspected the device but no defect was found even after thorough inspection. Opposite Party No. 3 has denied the allegations made by the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 3

5. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 3 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 3 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 3

6. To support its case Opposite Party No. 3 has filed affidavit of Shri Anup Kumar Mathur of Opposite Party No. 3, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 3 as mentioned in the written statement.

 

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Complainant. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 3 for addressing arguments despite grant of the opportunities.  We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that on 17.06.2018 Complainant purchased a mobile handset of Samsung made for a sum of Rs. 13,500/-. The said mobile handset was having one year warranty. The case of the Complainant is that the screen camera and video of the said mobile phone were not clear. Thereafter he approached the Opposite Parties and complaint regarding the problem of the mobile handset. His case is that nothing was done by the Opposite Parties. On the other hand the case of the Opposite Party No. 3 is that there was no problem in the mobile phone purchased by the Complainant. It is the case of the Opposite Party No. 3 that the mobile phone was checked by its engineer on 21.06.2018 and no defect was found. The Opposite Party No. 3 has filed copy of the service request. The perusal of the same shows that the mobile phone was checked by the engineer of the Opposite Party No. 3 and after inspection no defect was found. This report bears the signature of the Complainant and copy of the same was also supplied to the Complainant. Complainant has not denied or challenged the authenticity of this report. Further the Opposite Party No. 3 has also filed another document regarding the testing of the mobile phone dated 21.06.2018. The perusal of the said document shows that no defect was found in the mobile handset.This document is also signed by the Complainant. Thus, the evidence led by the Opposite Party No. 3 shows that there was no defect in the mobile phone purchased by the Complainant. On the other hand the Complainant has not led any cogent evidence to show that there was some defect in the mobile phone purchased by him. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed. 
8. Order announced on 02.08.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)