CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.212/2012
SH. BHAVNEET SAHNI
S/O SH. ASHOK SAHNI,
R/O 90/52, MALVIYA NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110017
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- M/S MOBIPHONE NETWORK (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,
(THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY)
SG-15, DLF GALLERIA, DLF CITY PHASE-IV,
GURGAON-122001, HARYANA
- SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.
(THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY)
A-25, GROUND FLOOR, FRONT TOWER,
MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SUITES,
NEW DELHI-110044
- SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.
(THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY)
CC-28, NEHRU ENCLAVE,
KALKAJI, OPP. PARAS CINEMA,
NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019
………….. RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:23.03.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
Complainant has purchased one mobile phone from OP-1, dealer of OP-2 on 05.01.2012 for a sum of Rs.25,000/-. OP-2 is manufacturer. The said mobile phone has started giving trouble from the date one of its purchase. Complainant took the mobile phone twice to service centre of OP and got it repaired. The said mobile set again started giving trouble and complainant returned the defective mobile set at the service centre i.e. OP-3 and requested for replacement of same. It is prayed that despite letter dated 19.04.2012 the defective mobile set has not been replaced. It is prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.25,000/- being the cost of mobile phone alongwith interest @ 24% and also to pay Rs.50,000/- for compensation and Rs.11,000/- for litigation expenses.
OP-1 was proceed ex parte.
OP-2 and OP-3 in reply took the plea that there was no deficiency in service on their part and no cause of action arose in favour of complainant to file the complaint against OP. OP has always paid full attention to the complaint of complainant. OP was ready to repair the product or refund the purchase amount as suited to complainant and OP is still ready to resolve the matter. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant as well as Ld. Counsel for OP-2 and OP-3 and carefully perused the records.
Vide email dated 19.04.2012 complainant has brought to the notice o OP about the poor quality of the mobile phone. The same was duly replied by OP whereby they have promised to look into the problem. Again OP vide their email dated 23.04.12 requested complainant to get back to their service centre which the complainant declined. In fact it is proved from record that mobile phone was defective and OP has fairly agreed to refund the amount. OP should have replaced the mobile phone as desired by complainant as the same was defective. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP is directed to refund to complainant Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint plus Rs.5,000/- for compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
