DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.435 of 2016
Date of institution: 25.07.2016 Date of decision : 01.02.2018
P. Bimla Swamy wife of Mr. P. Muthu Swamy, resident of House No.1220, Badal Colony, Zirakpur, District Mohali (Punjab).
…….Complainant
Versus
1. E. Zone Inside Big Bazar, Paras Down Town Sqaure Mall, Delhi- Chandigarh Highway, NH-22, Zirakpur, District Mohali, through its authorised signatory.
2. M/s. Samsung Customer Satisfaction, 2nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech. Square, Sector 43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its authorised representative.
3. M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., B-1, Sector 81, Phase-2, Noida District Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, through its authorised signatory.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Ishant Negi, counsel for OP No.1.
Shri Tushar Arora, counsel for OP No.2 and 3.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant claims to have purchased one mobile phone of Samsung Galaxy Grand Prime bearing IMEI No.351714071755954/3517140717554 from OP No.1 on 09.08.2015 for a sum of Rs.10,969.21 N.P. In June, 2016 the said mobile hand set started giving trouble because the message shown on the screen was referring “there is no service”. Complainant immediately approached Samsung Authorised Service Centre in Sector-22, Chandigarh. Officials of that service centre tried to match the IMEI number of the hand set with the IMEI number given on the box. However, the IMEI number given on the box was not matching with the IMEI number given inside the handset. In view of this, officials of service centre refused to rectify the problem by disclosing as if handset is not of an Indian made. Thereafter, OP No.1 again was approached and after long discussion OP No.1 took the hand set for exchange from the Company. Complainant was called upon to collect the handset after 7/8 days. Complainant handed over the handset to OP No.1 on 05.07.2016 and thereafter visited him on 12.07.2016 when officials of OP No.1 refused to exchange the handset for reasons best known to them. The defective handset was returned to complainant with suggestion to approach the Consumer Forum for redressal of the grievance. This handset was purchased from Big Bazar, Zirakpur by making payment there and as such this Forum has territorial jurisdiction. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, prayer made for directing OPs to replace the handset with new one or refund the entire price amount of the handset and compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- more claimed.
2. In reply filed by OP No.1, it is claimed inter alia as if complaint is filed just for abusing the process of law; in view of intricate questions of law and facts, the matter should be got decided from the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction; complaint alleged to be false and frivolous. Moreover, it is claimed that OP No.1 is not manufacturer of the mobile hand set and as such it is not liable. Defect, if any, in the mobile hand set has to be rectified by the manufacturer i.e. OP No.2 and 3 as per contents of this reply. Moreover, it is claimed that no allegation of deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 leveled and as such complaint against OP No.1 is not maintainable. It is not denied that handset in question was purchased from OP No.1. It is admitted that complainant approached OP No.1 with mobile phone and thereafter it tried to help the complainant by sending the handset to OP No.2 for rectification of the defects. OP No.1 also sent e-mails to OP No.2 for that purpose. On consistent follow up with OP No.2, it was revealed that the issue was with regard to IMEI number of the mobile handset. The IMEI number written inside the hand set was 357575/06/661459/5 & 357676/06/661459/1 but the IMEI number on the box was 351714/07/07/5595/4 and 351715/07/1175595/1. This IMEI number displayed and when the same was sought to be confirmed by dialing #6#, it was found different, because the same was displayed as 3576554064467505/01 and 356555064467502/1. OP No.2 disclosed as if the IMEI number displayed on the mobile hand set had been allotted to an imported hand set, which is not serviceable in India. In this way, OP No.1 has extended full cooperation to complainant for helping him to get the defects rectified and as such it is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. Besides, it is claimed that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction.
3. Separate reply jointly filed by OP No.2 and 3. It is claimed that as per case of complainant herself, IMEI number of the mobile hand set, which was presented for the purpose of service, did not bear the same IMEI number as was mentioned in the bill/box and as such liability of answering OPs does not remain because one year warranty on the mobile handset available on production of original mobile and after ascertaining by the company, the date of the purchase. As the IMEI number of the mobile handset did not match with the number mentioned in the bill and as such the same cannot be considered to be within warranty period. These OPs claimed that they will repair the mobile within warranty, in case original bill having IMEI number is produced. It is further claimed that as per records of company, the mobile set in question may not have been manufactured in India. Facts in this respect can be ascertained on submission of request only. Mobile set in question alleged to be not manufactured by Samsung India Private Limited and that is why same cannot be serviced under warranty. It is not the case of the complainant that IMEI numbers were matching with each other and as such OPs cannot be fastened with liability.
4. Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and thereafter closed evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Ankur Sharma, Assistant Department Manager of OP No.1 alongwith e-mail correspondence record Ex.OP-1 and thereafter closed evidence. Counsel for OP No.2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-2/1 of Amit Rana, Manager and thereafter closed evidence.
5. Written arguments submitted by OP No.1 only and not by any other party. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.
6. Invoice of purchase of mobile in question by complainant from OP No.1 on 09.08.2015 for consideration of Rs.10,969.21 N.P. is produced on record as Ex.C-1. IMEI number of the purchased mobile is specifically disclosed in this invoice Ex.C-1. As and when mobile is purchased, a consumer cannot be supposed to match the IMEI number given in the bill with IMEI number given inside the handset because no one will prefer to remove the seals of the new mobile in the first instance. So certainly complainant was supposed to know about the wrong IMEI number, being mentioned in invoice Ex.C-1 only after it was opened by someone for repairs or like that. Versions given by complainant through complaint as well as through affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 are fully believable that on defect being developed in the mobile, she took the same to OP No.1 for repairs on 05.07.2016 itself because receipt Ex.C-2 in that respect has been produced. It is also the case of OP No.1 that mobile handset was tendered with it by complainant for repairs on 05.07.2016. Promise for exchange was made to complainant and that is why endorsement in that respect specifically made in gate pass receipt Ex.C-2 dated 05.07.2016 itself. Question of making promise of exchange of mobile hand set in question with new one would arise only, if really, there would have been defects in the mobile.
7. OP No.1 claims to have sent the mobile to OP No.2 and there it was found as if the IMEI number available inside the handset was not matching with the IMEI number mentioned in the bill or on the box. Counsel for OP No.1 contends that in view of earnest efforts made by OP No.1 for helping complainant in rectification of the defects in the mobile hand set, deficiency in service on part of OP No.1 cannot be found. That submission of counsel for OP No.1 certainly has no force because after going through e-mail correspondence Ex.OP-1, it is made out as if the customer being senior citizen and retired professor, was found as a genuine customer. After going through Ex.OP-1, it is made out that local Samsung Office refused to repair the handset in question even on chargeable basis. So from this correspondence, it is obvious that defects in the mobile handset refused to be rectified even on chargeable basis. That refusal was because Samsung Mobile Company found as if the mobile handset is not manufactured by it. Contents of affidavit Ex.OP-2/1 of Shri Amit Rana, Manager of Samsung India Electronics Limited discloses so. If the mobile set in question is not manufactured by Samsung India Electronics Limited and the IMEI number on the box or on the bill was not tallying with the IMEI number of the mobile set as inscribed inside therein, then inference is obvious that OP No.1 sold the mobile of some fictitious manufacturer or the mobile set in question sold by misrepresentation, as if the same is serviceable in India by the manufacturer. For all this, fault lays with OP No.1 because it adopted unfair trade practice in selling the mobile with different description and IMEI number than the one actually contemplated to be purchased by complainant. OP No.2 and 3 in such circumstances neither can be held to have provided deficient service and nor they adopted any unfair trade practice. Exclusive fault remains with OP No.1 in selling the mobile with different IMEI number than the one projected to be sold through invoice Ex.C-1. So refund of price amount of mobile in such circumstances is the appropriate relief but subject to surrender of defective mobile handset by complainant with OP No.1. Refund of price amount must be made by OP No.1 within specified period of 30 days, failing which entitlement of complainant to interest @ 6% per annum will be there. Complaint against OP No.2 and 3 in such circumstances merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed. Keeping in view the price amount of mobile set in question, sufferings of the complainant and efforts made by OP No.1 in getting the mobile handset in question repaired, ends of justice warrant that compensation for mental harassment and agony and litigation expenses must be on the lower side.
8. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint allowed in terms that complainant will surrender mobile set in question with OP No.1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order and thereafter OP No.1 will refund the price amount of Rs.10,969.21 N.P. within 30 days on receipt of this mobile set from complainant. In case OP No.1 failed to refund this amount within period of 30 days as referred above, then complainant will be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on above referred amount of Rs.10,969.21 N.P. after expiry of above contemplated period of 30 days till payment. Complaint against OP No.2 and 3, however, is dismissed. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.2,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP No.1 only. Payment of these amounts of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Announced
February 01, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu) Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
