BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.291 of 2018

      Date of Instt. 16.07.2018

      Date of Decision:22.02.2022

Mansi Malhotra D/o Sh. Naveen Malhotra R/o H. No.332-New Baldev Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Mobile House, HO:-Chadha Mobile House Pvt. Ltd. Regd of:           Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar, Through its Manager.

2.       Samsung Service Centre, The Ram, Footbal Chowk, Above    Canara 6 Bank, Basti Adda Road, Jalandhar, Through its   Manager.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)   

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. Robin Budhiraja, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Rajneesh Khanna, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 exparte.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant has purchased one mobile handset model Samsung SM-J510FN (IMEI 357422071126275) has been purchased by complainant on 25.07.2016 from Mobile House Jalandhar for Rs.14,000/- at same time complainant take insurance for her mobile for Rs.1249/-. That as per insurance policy in case of claim new handset or amount of handset will be given to complainant in case of theft or snatching. That on 01.10.2016 the mobile of complainant has been snatched from her father near Bus Stand Jalandhar and same has been reported by her father near police station vide DDR No.114-5BH dated 03.10.2016. That the complainant applied for his claim to OP No.1 on 07.10.2016 and the same time Rs.2100/- has been deposited to OP No.1 as claim file charges and the OP NO.1 demanded some days to deliver new handset. That claim of complainant has been accepted by the OP No.1 and on 13.12.2016 OP has delivered the handset to the father of the complainant. That on 01.06.2018 mobile start hanging and then complainant approached to the service centre OP No.2 and the one representative of service centre told the complainant that the mobile was not under warranty. The service centre OP No.2 had refused to repair the same handset because they said that this was assembled handset from other handsets. That the complainant asked about handset to the OP No.1 and want to give detail about the replaced handset then the OP No.1 agreed that this is second hand repaired set and issued one letter about the handset to complainant in which it is clearly stated that this was repaired handset. That the OP has cheated complainant by issuing him second handset which was not properly working and out of warranty and not accepted by service centre of Samsung. That the OP No.1 had committed great negligence, deficiency and unfair trade practice. That the above mentioned acts of OP has caused mental tension, pain, agony, loss of precious time of complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the handset with new one or refund the price and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation/damage and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.                                                                      

   2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. That the present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the answering OP No.1 in order to harass and to indulge into unwanted litigation. It is further averred that the present complaint is false and has been wrongly filed by the complainant against the answering OP No.1 as the answering OP No.1 is nor the manufacturer or the authorized service centre of the alleged purchased mobile and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP as alleged by the complainant. On merits, the factum in regard to purchasing the mobile on 25.07.2016 from OP No.1, is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.  

3.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the argument from learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The contention of the complainant is that she purchased the Samsung handset for Rs.14,000/- on 25.07.2016 and took insurance for mobile for Rs.1249/-. The mobile of complainant was snatched from her father near Bus Stand on 01.10.2016 and the DDR was got registered by her father on 03.10.2016. The complainant lodged claim before OP No.1 on 07.10.2016 and deposited Rs.2100/- as file charges. The OP No.1 promised to deliver new handset and the same was delivered on 13.12.2016. It has been alleged that on 01.06.2018 the mobile started hanging and when the mobile was sent for repair to OP No.2, the complainant was informed that the mobile is assembled one and it does not carry any warranty. The deficiency in service and unfair trade practice has been alleged. The request has been made by the complainant to refund the price of the mobile alongwith compensation and legal expenses as the OPs have cheated the complainant.

7.                It has been admitted by the OP No.1 that the complainant purchased the mobile on 25.07.2016. The counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that no claim was ever filed by the complainant before the OP No.1 nor the claim was ever accepted by the OP No.1. The complainant has not filed on record any bill nor any DDR has been filed on the record. No record of putting forward the alleged claim before the OP No.1 has been filed by the complainant. There is no document on the record to show that the OP No.1 has ever received the amount of Rs.2100/- from the complainant. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove the case. Request has been made to dismiss the complaint.

8                 The fact of purchase of the mobile has been admitted. The complainant has not produced any invoice to show that she has purchased the mobile model Samsung SM-J510FN from the OP No.1. She has alleged that she had taken insurance for her mobile. Ex.C-4 has been proved as Invoice for purchasing the insurance for Rs.1249/-. Perusal of Ex.C-4 shows that there is a note on the bottom of the Invoice that warranty of any mobile and insurance will be provided by their respective company, service center and insurance company only. Ex.C-3 is the document showing the mobile protection guarantee, but this is of ‘apps daily’. The complainant has not made manufacturer and insurance company as a party. However, the fact of purchase of mobile has been admitted, therefore, this purchase of mobile does not require any proof though no invoice has been filed. The complainant has alleged that her mobile was snatched, but no Copy of DDR has been produced on record by the complainant to show that his mobile was snatched on 01.10.2016. The complainant has alleged that she has paid Rs.2100/- as claim file charges on 07.10.2016 and applied for her claim. Ex.C-2 has been proved as a receipt of Rs.2100/-. Perusal of Ex.C-2 shows that this amount was received from Sourav Shukla on 07.10.2016 and this is regarding intimation of ID ATN-0410116-197788420 by Sourav Shukla. This document nowhere shows that Rs.2100/- was received either from complainant or from her father as file charges.

9.                The contention of the complainant is that another mobile was given by the OP on 13.12.2016 and to prove this fact, she has proved on record the invoice Ex.C-1, which is in the name of AppsDaily Solution Private Ltd. from Mumbai, Maharashtra and it was sent to AppsDaily Solution Pvt. Ltd., Near KMV College, Jalandhar. This document does not bear the name of the complainant or her father nor the address mentioned in this is of the complainant. No warranty card has been produced on the record to show that the mobile was within warranty. Similarly, no report of any service centre or any expert has been produced on record to show that this was assembled handset from another handset. So, the complainant has failed to prove the allegations as alleged in the complaint. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as claimed and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna                Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj    22.02.2022         Member                        Member           President