Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/339/2020

Rajeev vats S/o S.P. Vats - Complainant(s)

Versus

Electro Photo Equipments - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Sanghwan

19 Jan 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.339 of 2020

                                                     Date of institution: 22.09.2020

                                                     Date of decision:19.01.2022.

                         

Rajeev Vats aged about 47 years son of Sh.S.P.Vats resident of  1382/13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.                                     …Complainant.

                        Versus

1.Electro Photo Equipments Pvt. Limited, Elante Mall, Shop No.245, 2^nd floor, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh 160002 through its authorized signatory6.

2. Samsung Mobile Company, Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.6^th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 11001.

….Opposite parties.

                Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh.  Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Sh.Vikas Sangwan Advocate for the complainant.

                OP No.1 ex parte.

                Sh.Shekhar Kapoor Advocate for the OP No.2.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Rajeev Vats  against   Electro Photo equipments  etc. the opposite parties.

 

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased  a mobile make Samsung Model SM-G975  S10+ PRISM  Blue (128 GB) from OP No.1  by paying an amount of Rs.73900/- + Rs.7917.86 (GST) total amounting to Rs.81,817/- on 8.3.2019. The payment was made in cash to OP No.1.  It is further submitted that in the month of December 2019, the screen of the mobile phone become dull and vision on the screen  of the mobile phone was not proper. The complainant  faced great  hardship due to above problem in his phone. The business of the complainant suffered a lot as the complainant is dependent on the mobile for his day to day jobs. It is submitted that the complainant went to showroom of OP No.1 in the month of January 2020 and told him regarding problem in the phone.
The OP No.1 told to the complainant that engineer of the OP No.2  will be visiting his showroom in a day or two and assured the complainant that he will call the complainant and the OP No.1 kept the mobile with  him. After few days, the complainant visited the showroom of OP No.1 as per his assurance and handed over the mobile to the complainant and further assured that in future there would be no problem in the phone. It is submitted that again in the second week of March 2020 the same problem developed in the phone and he suffered hardship in doing his calls and job and he went to OP no.1 who assured to solve the problem  and he told that he will contact the OP No.2 in this regard. Thereafter from  22^nd March there is a lockdown situation in the country and it was not possible for the complainant to approach the OP No.1 or 2. After start of unlock in the last week of July 2020, the complainant again visited the showroom of OPNo.1 and requested them to repair or change the phone as it was not working properly. This time OP No.2 flatly refused to entertain the complaint of the complainant. On the request of the complainant either to repair or change the phone, OP No.2 misbehaved with the complainant which amounts to  deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the cost of the mobile phone alongwith compensation for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses.

3.             Upon notice, OP No.1 failed to appear and contest the present complaint. Therefore, OP No.1 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 18.10.2021.

4.             OP No.2 appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant is not a consumer qua the Ops. The complainant is  required to produce the original bill of purchase in order to get his complaint maintained which is alleged to be purchased from the OP No.1. It is submitted that the answering OP  has not received any document alongwith the copy of complaint.>Neither the complainant furnished any details of repair nor the complainant ha produced any repair job sheet for the alleged handset in question. The complainant has not produced the bill for the handset  and in the absence of the said details, the present complaint is not maintainable and thus is liable to be dismissed.  It is submitted that an expert opinion is required and mandatory u/s 38 (2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act to prove the allegations/averments made by the complainant. It is submitted that the answering OP were and are always ready to provide services as per warranty policy, so there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. It is further submitted that the OP has an online system to enter all claims/complaints vide IEMI/Sr.No. in each and every case but in the present complaint as per limited details mentioned in the complaint, no serial number of the handset or valid contact number has been provided by the complainant and for the reason no details found in online system of the  OP which means that the complainant has never registered any complaint. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP specifically and it is submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

5.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and  tendered documents Ex.C-1 and closed his evidence.

 

6.             On the other hand, OP No.2 in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.RW1/A and  closed its evidence.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file.

8.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that  the  complainant purchased  a mobile make Samsung Model SM-G975  S`0+ PRISM  Blue (128 GB) from OP No.1  by paying an amount of Rs.73900/- + Rs.7917.86 (GST) total amounting to Rs.81,817/- on 8.3.2019. The payment was made in cash to OP No.1.  It is further argued that in the month of December 2019, the screen of the mobile phone become dull and vision on the screen  of the mobile phone was not proper. The complainant faced great hardship due to above problem in his phone. The business of the complainant suffered a lot as the complainant is dependent on the mobile for his day to day jobs. It is  argued that the complainant went to showroom of OP No.1 in the month of January 2020 and told him regarding problem in the phone.
The OP No.1 told to the complainant that engineer of the OP No.2  will be visiting his showroom in a day or two and assured the complainant that he will call the complainant and the OP No.1 kept the mobile with  him. After few days, the complainant visited the showroom of OP No.1 as per his assurance and handed over the mobile to the complainant and further assured that in future there would be no problem in the phone. It is submitted that again in the second week of March 2020 the same problem developed in the phone and he suffered hardship in doing his calls and job and he went to OP no.1 who assured to solve the problem and he told that he will contact the OP No.2 in this regard. Thereafter from  22^nd March there is a lockdown situation in the country and it was not possible for the complainant to approach the OP No.1 or 2. After start of unlock in the last week of July 2020, the complainant again visited the showroom of OPNo.1 and requested them to repair or change the phone as it was not working properly. This time OP No.2 flatly refused to entertain the complaint of the complainant. On the request of the complainant either to repair or change the phone, OP No.2 misbehaved with the complainant which amounts to  deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

9.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.2 while reiterating the submissions made in the written statement has argued that the complainant is not a consumer qua the Ops. The complainant is  required to produce the original bill of purchase in order to get his complaint maintained which is alleged to be purchased from the OP No.1. It is further argued  that the answering OP  has not received any document alongwith the copy of complaint. Neither the complainant furnished any details of repair nor the complainant has produced any repair job sheet for the alleged handset in question. The complainant has not produced the bill for the handset  and in the absence of the said details, the present complaint is not maintainable and thus is liable to be dismissed.  It is argued  that an expert opinion is required and mandatory u/s 38 (2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act to prove the allegations/averments made by the complainant. It is submitted that the answering OP were and are always ready to provide services as per warranty policy, so there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. It is further submitted that the OP has an online system to enter all claims/complaints vide IEMI/Sr. No. in each and every case but in the present complaint as per limited details mentioned in the complaint, no serial number of the handset or valid contact number has been provided by the complainant and for the reason no details found in online system of the  and as such no deficiency can be said to have been occurred on the part of the Ops.

 

10.            The contention of the OP Nbo.2 that the complainant is not consumer qua the Ops is devoid of any force because from invoice Ex.C-1 it is proved that the complainant purchased the mobile phone in question from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.73900/-. The factum of the purchase of the mobile phone by the complainant from OPNo.1 and the same is manufactured by the OP No.2 is also established from the affidavit  Ex.CW1/A filed by the complainant coupled with the bill Ex.C-1.

11.            Secondly, the argument of the Ops that there is no complaint regarding the defect in the phone is also devoid of any merit. The complainant had purchased the mobile phone in question on 8.3.2019 and he has filed the present complaint on 22.09.2020 but as per averments made in the complaint coupled with the affidavit of the complainant, the mobile phone in question became defective in January 2020 just after  8/9 months of its purchase. The phone in question was having warranty of one year.  The complainant  has placed on record the original bill of the phone and even after the filing of the present complaint, the Ops have not opted to  repair the phone in question.  This shows the conduct of the Ops. Whatever, the circumstances may be,  from the   estimate of repairs mark “A” placed on the file, it is clear that the phone is defective one and  as per averments made in the complaint and affidavit Ex.CW1/A  of the complainant, Ops failed to repair or replace the mobile phone of the complainant, which proves deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. However, the complainant  has used the phone for about 8/9 months, therefore, the complainant would be entitled to 40% of the cost of the phone i.e.  40% of Rs.73900= Rs.29560/- from the Ops and the complainant shall return the mobile phone in question to the Ops. Therefore, deficiency in services is made out on the part of the Ops and the  present complaint is liable to accepted.

 

12.            In view of our above mentioned findings and observations, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to refund Rs.29560/- ( i.e. 40 % of  the cost of the mobile phone i.e. 40% of Rs.73900/-= Rs.29560/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order till its actual realization. The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for the mental harassment caused to the complainant and for the litigation expenses. The Ops are further directed to make the complained of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of this order, failing which the  complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings u/s 71 of the Consumer Protection Act. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in the open  Commission.

Dated: 19.01.2022.                                              President.

 

 

                                Member             Member.