Delhi

East Delhi

CC/601/2016

GOVIND - Complainant(s)

Versus

CROMA - Opp.Party(s)

30 Apr 2019

ORDER

                 CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

        CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                    Consumer Complaint no.           601/2016

                                                                                    Date of Institution                   24/11/2016

                                                                                    Order Reserved on                  30/04/2019

                                                                                    Date of Order                          01/05/2019 

In matter of

Mr Govind Singh Rawat         

s/o Sh Gyan Singh Rawat   

R/o 272/3 Sarpanch Ka Bara

Mandawali Shakarpur Delhi 110092.………..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-M/ The Manager

Croma Retail Ltd

Plot no. C- 53, Preet Vihar  

Vikas Marg Delhi-110092    

 

2- M/s MAA Vashnavi Services Pvt Ltd.

1, New Rajdhani Enclave 1^st Floor

Nr Preet Vihar Metro Station, Delhi 110092

 

3-M/a Samsung India Pvt Ltd.

20^th to 24^th Floor Two Horizon Centre

Golf Course Road, Sec. 43 DLF Ph V

Gurgaon Haryana 122202…………………………………..Opponents   

 

Complainant’ Advocate                           In Person   

Opponent’s 1                                            Ex Parte

Opponent 2&3 Advocate                         Prashant Arora & Aso.  

 

Quorum            Sh Sukhdev Singh          President

                         Dr P N Tiwari                 Member

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur         Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                          

Complainant purchased Samsung mobile vide model no. Samsung Galaxy J 500 from OP1/ M/s Croma Retail Ltd on 25/12/2015 for a sum of Rs 12,390/-vide invoice no. SLF02A08901003536 having IMEI no. 352672076542729 (Ex CW1/1 & 1A). One year standard warranty was provided by the seller/OP1. After using over one year and eight months, developed problem in display screen, so visited OP2 who told after inspection of mobile that the display screen was damaged so would require replacement after paying its charges as said mobile was neither had extended warranty nor complainant was ready to pay its cost Rs 4341/-(Ex CW1/2).

Complainant stated that seeing OP2s callous attitude, complainant paid the cost as demanded by OP2 and screen was replaced. It was stated that after using said mobile again developed problem and again taken to OP2, but this time OP2 told that the said mobile had liquid damage which was not present, so complainant did not pay another demanded cost and also did not repair the mobile, so filed this complaint and claimed refund of the cost of mobile Rs 12390/- plus Rs 4341/- as part (screen) replaced. He also claimed compensation Rs 50,000/- for ment6al harassment and Rs 15,000/- as litigation charge.  

OP2 & 3 submitted written statement jointly and denied all the allegations alleged against them. It was stated that due to liquid damage which was against the extended warranty terms (Ex OPW1/1), so complainant was asked to pay for repair of liquid damage which occurred due to mishandling of mobile handset. Whereas it was stated that complainant had paid for screen damage which too did not come under warranty conditions, but second time the damage was due to liquid damage.  

OP also stated reference of certain citations as under-

1. Sushila Automobiles Ltd vs Dr Birendra Narain & others, 3(2010)CPJ 130(NC),
2. Stereocraft vs Monotype India Ltd. (2000) NCJ (SC) 59,
3. Maruti Udhyog Ltd vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra (2006)4 SCC 644,
4. Bharat Knitting vs DHL Worldwide (1996) 4 SCC 7024

OP stated that laws were laid down in all above citations where if terms and conditions were violated, OP could not be held deficient in their services and also in absence of contract, liability could not be fastened on OP/ Company. As here in this case, the said mobile was neither under standard or extended warranty covering all parts and all types of damages like physical damages, liquid damages except manufacturing defect proved by their authorized service centers. Hence, this complaint has no merit and so deserves to be dismissed.  

OP1/ seller did not appear despite of serving notice, so proceeded ExParte.   

Complainant filed his rejoinder where he denied all the replies made by OP2&3. He also submitted evidences on his own affidavit and reaffirmed on oath that after relying on cash memo CW1/1 and service report CW1/2, his mobile was not serviced by OP2 as the said mobile had manufacturing defect. So all facts of his complaint were correct and true and claim be awarded in his favour.  

OP 2& 3 jointly submitted evidence through Mr Anindya Bose, AR with OP 2 &3 and stated on oath that OP had worked as per terms and conditions set by manufacture /OP3 and service engineer with OP2. Complainant had put all baseless allegations on OP2 &3 whereas OP relied on warranty conditions and service reports. It was submitted that complainant had paid for screen damage, but refused to rectify liquid damage in his mobile which never covered under any warranty conditions. OP2&3 had provided all possible services as and when complaint was received and timely defects were explained to complainant. Hence there were no merits and all allegations were baseless, so complaint be dismissed.

Arguments were heard from both the party counsels and after perusal of records on file, order was reserved.   

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was observed that said mobile was not under warranty and complainant had paid for screen damage and denied payments for liquid damages. That being so, this complaint has no merit so this complaint deserves dismissal, so dismissed without any order to cost.

The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 (6) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 ( in short CPR)  and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of CPR.

 

 

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                               Sukhdev Singh  President