Haryana

Kaithal

CC/165/2022

Vinod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Gulati Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.H.R Wadhwa

17 Jul 2023

ORDER

                       

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.165/2022.

                                                     Date of institution: 05.07.2022.

                                                     Date of decision:17.07.2023.

Vinod Kumar (Aadhar No.9815 3202 9846) S/o Sh. Narayan Dass Nanda R/o H.No.574/4, Subhash Nagar, Khurana Road, Kaithal-136027, District Kaithal, Mob.No.9468189405.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. M/s. Gulati Communication, Lala Lajpat Rai Complex, near Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal through its prop./partner.
2. Unique Mobile Solutions (Samsung Service Centre), 1057/11, Marwa Complex KKR Road, Kaithal through its prop./partner.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Co. 20^th to 24^th Floor Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase 5, Sector-43, Gurugram, Haryana through its M.D.
4. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office 6^th Floor DLF, Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its M.D.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate, for the complainant.   

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

                OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

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

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had purchased mobile Sam-A73 8/256 for a consideration of Rs.44,999/- from the OP No.1 vide invoice No.230 dt. 18.06.2022.  After five days of purchase of said mobile i.e. on 26.06.2022, MIC problem accrued in the above-said mobile set and voice could not be received to attend the call in the said mobile.  The complainant approached the OP No.2 on 27.06.2022 and OP No.2 updated the aforesaid mobile set but problem of MIC could not be solved.  On 28.06.2022, the complainant again requested the OP No.2 to remove said problem but the OP No.2 demanded the amount of Rs.9300/- for removal of problem of MIC.  Despite repeated requests and demands, the OPs did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.          Upon notice, the OPs No.3 & 4 appeared before this Commission, whereas OPs No.1 & 2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 12.09.2022 passed by this Commission.  OPs No.3 & 4 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that the unit which is under the use and possession of the complainant since the purchase and the same got defective/damaged due to Glue entered in MIC of the unit resulting in damage to the unit.  In fact, the unit of complainant has been duly checked by the expert engineer of answering OP and the same has been found damaged due to negligence of complainant (GLUE WAS FOUND IN THE MIC OF THE UNIT RESULTING IN DAMAGE TO THE UNIT).  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 & Annexure-C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OPs No.3 & 4 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased mobile Sam-A73 8/256 for a consideration of Rs.44,999/- from the OP No.1 vide invoice No.230 dt. 18.06.2022.  It is further argued that after five days of purchase of said mobile i.e. on 26.06.2022, MIC problem accrued in the above-said mobile set and voice could not be received to attend the call in the said mobile.  The complainant approached the OP No.2 on 27.06.2022 and OP No.2 updated the aforesaid mobile set but problem of MIC could not be solved.  It is further argued that on 28.06.2022, the complainant again requested the OP No.2 to remove said problem but the OP No.2 demanded the amount of Rs.9300/- for removal of problem of MIC.  Despite repeated requests and demands, the OPs did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on file copy of order dt. 04.02.2020 passed by this Commission titled as Vinod Kumar Vs. Samsung India Electronics.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs No.3 & 4 has argued that the unit which is under the use and possession of the complainant since the purchase and the same got defective/damaged due to Glue entered in MIC of the unit resulting in damage to the unit.  It is further argued that the unit of complainant has been duly checked by the expert engineer of OP and the same has been found damaged due to negligence of complainant (GLUE WAS FOUND IN THE MIC OF THE UNIT RESULTING IN DAMAGE TO THE UNIT). 

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  It is clear from the invoice as per Annexure-C1 that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question on 18.06.2022.  The grievance of the complainant is that the said mobile set became defective within the warranty period and the complainant approached the service-centre of OPs on 28.06.2022 but the service-centre of OPs i.e. OP No.2 did not repair the mobile set on the ground that due to Glue entered in MIC of the unit resulting in damage to the unit.  Thereafter, on 06.07.2022 the complainant approached to the another service centre i.e. A.K.Trading Co. Kaithal and this time, the complainant got repaired the mobile set after making payment of Rs.8203/-.  It is an admitted fact that during the pendency of present complaint i.e. on 11.08.2022, the company has paid the aforesaid amount of Rs.8203/- to the complainant.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on file copy of message given by the company to the complainant in this regard, which is Mark-A on the file.  The complainant has prayed for compensation as he has been dragged by the service-centre of OPs i.e. OP No.2 into unwanted litigation and he has suffered harassment and mental agony.  In view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of service-centre i.e. OP No.2.

10.            As a result of aforesaid discussion, we direct the service-centre-OP No.2 to pay the amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.3,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant within 45 days from today.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly against the OP No.2 and dismissed against OPs No.1, 3 & 4.       

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP No.2 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.:17.07.2023.  

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.