Delhi

East Delhi

CC/908/2013

Yash Pal Chawla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ganga Ram s Gallery - Opp.Party(s)

16 Dec 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC No.908/2013:

 

In the matter of:

[

Sh. Yash Pal Chawla

S/o. Late Sh. P.L. Chawla

R/o. 311, GaganVihar,

Delhi – 110 051

Complainant 

Vs

1. M/s. Ganga Ram’s Gallery

C – 62, PreetVihar, Vikas Marg,

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. MaaVaishnavi Service Centre

            U – 157, 1st Floor, Shakarpur,

Vikas Marg, New Delhi – 110 092

 

3.  M/s. Samsung India Electronics Ltd.

F 26/3, Okhla Industrial Area Phase - II,

New Delhi – 110 020

   Respondents

                                                                                    Date of Admission  -30/10/2013

                                                                           Date of Order           - 18/09/2015

ORDER

 

Poonam Malhotra, Member:

 

 

 

The brief conspectus of facts of the present complaint are that on 06/10/2013 the complainant purchasedtwo Samsung Mobile Phone Handsets Model Nos.18262 & 18552 for Rs.13,750/- and Rs.17,900/- vide Bill Nos.768442 & 76841 respectively from Respondent No.Iand at the time of purchase the Respondent No.I had assured him of replacement within three days from the date of purchase, if it is defective.  It is alleged that from the very first day the handset was defective & on 07/10/2013, the complainant took the handset to Respondent No.I who advised him to approach Respondent No. II for replacement.  On 09/10/2013 when he approached Respondent No. II it reverted him back to Respondent No. I for replacement who then refused to replace it.  When the complainant failed to get any satisfactory on 09/10/2013 he lodged a complaint with the police at PS Shakarpur.  The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.13,750/-  and Rs.17,900/-, the cost of both the handsets, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony & Rs.15,000/- as the cost of this litigation.

            Notices were issued to the respondents.  Only Respondent Nos.II&III put up appearance and filed its written statement wherein while admitting the fact of purchase of the said handsets it has denied that there is any deficiency in service on its part. It has also raised the plea of concealment of material facts by the complainant and of want of cause of action to complainant.  It is contended that at the time of purchase the handset was in good condition but some problem has arisen due to its mishandling by the complainant.

 

Evidence by way of affidavit filed by the complainant and on behalf of Respondent Nos.II&III in support of their respective cases.

Heard and perused the record.

The facts of purchase of two Samsung Mobile Phone Handsets Model Nos.18262 & 18552 carrying a warranty of one year each from the date of purchasefor Rs.13,750/- and Rs.17,900/- vide Bill Nos.76842 & 76841 respectively by the complainant from Respondent No.I is not in dispute.    It is also evident from the perusal of the copies of the two retail invoices issued by the Respondent No.I that the complainant could exchange the product purchased from the Respondent No.I within 3 days except Saturday & Sunday.  It is also clear from the copy of the Token filed on record that the complainant visited the Samsung Service Centre on 09/10/13 vide Token No.I 133 at 12:51:38 but the purpose of visit cannot be ascertained from it.However, on perusal of the record it has come to light that the averments made in the complaint are with regard to a defective handset and are in strict contradiction to the relief claimed in the prayer which is with regard to the refund of the cost of both the handsets.  There is not an iota of evidence that could reveal the fact as to whether one of the two handsets was defective or both of the handsets were defective.  The Copy of the Police Complaint alleged to have been lodged by the complainant on 09/10/2013 though contains the fact that both the handsets in question were defective but it cannot be relied upon to substantiate this fact as on the bare perusal of the said document it is apparent that it is not an authentic document as neither does it bear the signature of the complainant nor does it contain the DD Number against which it was received by the concerned Police Station.  It is simply an endeavor of the complainant to create evidence and misguide this Forum.Further, the Respondent No.III has also raised contention with regard to anonymity of the handset/s which is/are defective and the same has not been replied by the complainant even in his replication. Even the affidavit filed in evidence by the complainant does not lift the veil shrouded with ambiguity about the distinctiveness of the alleged defective handset which goes to the root of the present complaint.  However, a fact worth notice is that the Respondent Nos. II & III have stated in their Para7 of the ParawiseReplyin their written statement that at the time of purchase the handset was in good condition but some problem has arisen due to its mishandling by the complainant.  This leaves no room for doubt that the complainant had approached the Respondent No.II as alleged by him but it did not intentionally issue a job-sheet/s to avoid any liability that could be imputed to either of the respondents towards the complainant.Had the Respondents acted in a consumer friendly manner and taken steps to check as to whether one of the handsets was defective or both of them were defective to resolve the issue the grievance of the complainant could have been redressed without the intervention of this Forum.The poor drafting of the complaint has put the issue involved in the present complaint in limbo.

Taking these facts and circumstances into consideration and in the interest of justice, we direct the complainant to handover both the said handsets to Respondent No.II, the Authorised Service Centre of Respondent No.III, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and Respondent No.II shall check both the said handsets under the supervision of Respondent No.III and carry out the repairs as per the terms and conditions of the warranty and .No order as to costs.

Copies of the order may be supplied to the parties as per rules.

 

   (Subhash Gupta)                                  (Poonam Malhotra)                                (N.A. Zaidi)

          Member                                                           Member                                 President