BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Mrs. Junu Gandhi, H.No.780, Sector 8, Panchkula

….…Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1]       M/s Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Ltd., through its Director Mr. Anmol, SCO No.1043, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

2]       Samsung India Electronics Ltd., 7^th & 8^th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61 Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019

                                                ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL            PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                  MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh.Lovleen Gandhi, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for OP No.1.

                   Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OP No.2.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                   The complainant purchased one Samsung CDMA Mobile Handset Model SCH-M569 from OP No.1 for Rs.8800/- on 8.10.2009 being the user of Reliance CDMA Service.  At the time of purchase, she was assured that it was the latest model for Reliance CDMA Services and it was also having the facility of call recording.  However, when complainant tried to record the call conversation on the mobile handset, as per its manual, it was unsuccessful.  The matter was taken up with OP No.1, who also tried their best to record the call conversation but failed.  On this  the complainant demanded refund of the amount but the OP official told that the calls cannot be recorded on Reliance network but the calls of other service providers like TATA etc. can be recorded and advised him to take a new mobile connection of some other service providers like TATA etc.  whereas the Reliance Customer Care personnel confirmed that call recording facility is available on their network and the fault lies with the mobile handset.  The complainant demanded refund of the amount or replacement of the mobile handset having facility of call recording but OP No.1 flatly refused to do so.  Hence, the present complaint alleging the above act of OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice causing the complainant great mental tension, physical harassment and financial loss.

2]                OP No.1- Anmol Watches filed reply and admitted the sale of mobile handset to the complainant.  It is stated that mobile was purchased by the complainant with her own sweet will and the OP No.1 was only the retailer of the mobile handset.  It is also stated that the liability, if any, in case of any manufacturing defect in the mobile, was of the manufacturer i.e. OP No.2.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint qua OP No.1.

3]                In the reply filed by OP No.-2 – Samsung India, it is denied that there was any defect in the mobile handset.  However, it is submitted that in case the complainant had any difficulty in using the said instrument, she should have approached the authorized service centre of the company, who could only demonstrate the applications available in the instrument and how the same were to be used, but the complainant never approached any such centre.  It is also submitted that in case there was any defect in the mobile handset the same shall be repaired by the company under the terms & conditions of the warranty.   All other allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint qua OP No.2 be dismissed.

4]                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]                We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

6]                It is admitted by the OPs that the mobile set was sold to the complainant vide Annexure C-3 which was capable of recording a call conversation as and when the call was received.  Annexure C-2 is the literature in this respect showing that the consumer is to press and hold (1) to start recording conversation during a call and when finished he/she is to press (O.K.) to save it.  However when the complainant tried to record the conversation the mobile phone did not work.  The OPs have not denied the defect in the mobile phone but their contention is that in case of difficulty, the complainant should have approached the authorized service centre of the company which she did not.  The complainant has a different story to narrate.  Her contention is that when the mobile phone did not work, she went to the shop of OP-1 and reported the failure of the phone to record call conversation, that there were about five experts present in the shop, who took the mobile and tried to record call conversation but they could not. She waited at their shop for about two hours and was told that the inquiry from Reliance CDMA Service provider reveals that calls cannot be recorded on Reliance network but calls of other service providers like Tata etc. can be recorded.  The complainant was advised to take a new mobile connection of some other service provider like Tata which she refused to do.  Her contention is that if the mobile set did not have call recording facility from Reliance she would not have purchased the said mobile and would have purchased the one without call recording facility which could be cheaper.  It is not the case of the OP even today, if the mobile phone can record the conversation on a Reliance network. 

7]                Annexure C-1 is the brochure regarding the said telephone which is shown to be operating properly on Reliance World also.  Annexure C-2 no where mentions if the calls on Reliance network cannot be recorded on the said mobile phone.  The mobile phone was therefore sold by the OPs by keeping their customers in the dark.  Even during the hearing of the case the mobile set was given to the Counsel for the OPs who wanted to update the software so that the mobile set started recording conversation on a Reliance network but they failed.  The OPs have therefore sold the mobile set which does not work on Reliance network.  Had they told the complainant about this defect in the phone, she would not have purchased the same.

8]                The contention of the Learned Counsel for the complainant is that she has already purchased another mobile set as the one in question could not be made serviceable and she therefore does not need this set. We are therefore of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed and the same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to refund Rs.8,800/- to the complainant alongwith litigation costs of Rs.1100/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which they would be liable to pay the same alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 15.10.2009 till the payment is actually made to the complainant.   

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.