Haryana

Kaithal

260/20

Anoop Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mobile Solution - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

24 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.260/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 20.08.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:24.04.2023.

Anoop Kumar S/o Sh. Pala Ram, resident of Karnal Road, near Ravi Dass Mandir, Kaithal, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Mobile Solutions, Nehru Garden Colony, Behind Jat School, Kaithal-136027, Kaithal through its prop./partner.
2. Unique Mobile Solutions Samsung Authorized Service Centre, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., near Patanjali Mega Store, KKR Road, Kaithal through its prop./partner, Mob.No.99962-39666.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office, 6^th Floor DLF, Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its M.D.
4. Bajaj Company in front of RKSD College, on first floor of Woodland Showroom, Ambala Road, Kaithal through its Manager. 

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Complainant in person.   

                Sh. Kuldeep Dhull, Advocate for the OP No.1.

                OP No.2 exparte.

Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Adv. for the OPs No.3 & 4.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Anoop Kumar-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had purchased mobile set Sam-A20 4/64 bearing IMEI No.357544/10/295473/6 (2) IMEI No.357544/10/295473/5 for a consideration of Rs.12,000/-from the OP No.1 vide invoice No.817 dt. 18.07.2019 and the said mobile set was insured with the OP No.4.  After 10-12 days of its purchase, the said mobile set became defective.  The complainant approached the OP No.2 and get the same repaired but after 4/5 days, the said mobile set again became defective.  The complainant requested the OPs No.2 & 3 to give new mobile set in place of defective mobile set and OPs No.2 & 3 gave new mobile set Samsung A-20, bearing IMEI No.357544104279993 to the complainant but they did not give the bill of said mobile set.  The said mobile set fell on the road and its CPP part was damaged and complainant got repaired the said mobile by spending the amount of Rs.5529/- to the OP No.2.  The complainant lodged the claim with the OP No.4 but the OP No.4 did not pay the amount of Rs.5529/- to the complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.       Upon notice, the OPs No.1, 3 & 4 appeared before this Commission, whereas OP No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 19.11.2020 passed by this Commission.  OP No.1 contested the complaint by filing written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             OP No.3 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that it is the duty of complainant to inform the alleged insurer of the product in question regarding the change of mobile handset of complainant (in time) but the complainant has failed to do so; that after getting replacement, the complainant approached the service-centre of answering OP vide job-sheet dt. 16.07.2020 and reported no power problem.  It is very important to point out that the complainant himself stated in para No.3 of the complaint that the handset was damaged due to falling on road.  The said fact is a clear evidence of negligence on the part of complainant.  The engineer provided estimate of repair as the handset of complainant had been out of warranty due to damage of handset.  The complainant agreed for paid repair and accordingly, the handset got repaired and the complainant took the delivery of handset to his full satisfaction.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Op No.4 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable against the answering OP as this OP is not a necessary party to the present complaint; that it is further submitted that the OP is a financing company providing loans to all the needy persons, thus, issuance of insurance policy or the acceptance/rejection of the insurance claim solely depends upon the insurance partner/company and not this OP and hence the OP should not be held accountable for any of the actions taken by the insurance partner/company towards the insurance claim of this complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the respondents No.3 & 4 tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R9 and thereafter, closed the evidence.  OP No.1 did not tender any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of Op No.1 was closed vide court order dt. 31.08.2022.

7              We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.             The complainant has argued that he purchased mobile set Sam-A20 4/64 bearing IMEI No.357544/10/295473/6 (2) IMEI No.357544/10/295473/5 for a consideration of Rs.12,000/-from the OP No.1 vide invoice No.817 dt. 18.07.2019 and the said mobile set was insured with the OP No.4.  After 10-12 days of its purchase, the said mobile set became defective.  The complainant approached the OP No.2 and get the same repaired but after 4/5 days, the said mobile set again became defective.  The complainant requested the OPs No.2 & 3 to give new mobile set in place of defective mobile set and OPs No.2 & 3 gave new mobile set Samsung A-20, bearing IMEI No.357544104279993 to the complainant but they did not give the bill of said mobile set.  The said mobile set fell on the road and its CPP part was damaged and complainant got repaired the said mobile by spending the amount of Rs.5529/- to the OP No.2.  The complainant lodged the claim with the OP No.4 but the OP No.4 did not pay the amount of Rs.5529/- to the complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents.

9.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs No.3 & 4 has argued that after getting replacement, the complainant approached the service-centre of OPs vide job-sheet dt. 16.07.2020 and reported no power problem.  It is further argued that the complainant himself stated in para No.3 of the complaint that the handset was damaged due to falling on road.  The said fact is a clear evidence of negligence on the part of complainant.  The engineer provided estimate of repair as the handset of complainant had been out of warranty due to damage of handset.  The complainant agreed for paid repair and accordingly, the handset got repaired and the complainant took the delivery of handset to his full satisfaction.  It is further argued that the OP No.4 is a financing company providing loans to all the needy persons, thus, issuance of insurance policy or the acceptance/rejection of the insurance claim solely depends upon the insurance partner/company and not this OP and hence the OP should not be held accountable for any of the actions taken by the insurance partner/company towards the insurance claim of this complainant.

10.            We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.   It is clear from the record that earlier the complainant purchased the mobile set Sam-A20 from the OP No.1 on 18.07.2019.  According to the complainant, after 10/12 days of its purchase, the said mobile set gave defects in camera but despite repair, the defects could not be removed from the said mobile set and on the request of complainant, the OPs No.2 & 3 gave new mobile set marka Samsung A-20 to the complainant.  The grievance of the complainant is that the said mobile set became defective during the warranty period and OPs No.2 & 3 charged Rs.5529/- from the complainant despite the fact that the said mobile set was within warranty period.  So, we are of the considered view that this act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

11.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the Ops jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs.5529/- to the complainant within 45 days from today.  However, it is made clear that if the Ops are failed to pay the aforesaid amount within stipulated period, then the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.        

 12.          In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents-OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:24.04.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.