Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/251/2022

SHIV KUMAR KANODIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

15 May 2024

ORDER

gDISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

                                             RBT/Complaint Case No. 251/22

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh.  Shiv Kumar Kanodia M/s Kumar Chandra & Associates 196-J, IInd Floor, Ramesh Mkt. East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065		Complainant
		Versus
	1.         2.	M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A 25, Ground Floor Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Indl. Area, New Delhi-110020   M/s Dee Vee Enterprises D 2/9, Model Town, New Delhi-110009		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER:		18.04.18 29.02.24 15.05.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer (Opposite Party No. 1) and M/s Dee Vee Enterprises, an authorized Service center for Samsung (Opposite Party No.2) alleging deficiency in services.

 

Case of the Complainant           

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 03.02.17 Complainant purchased a Samsung mobile A5 having IMEI no. 352810082269339 for sum of Rs. 21,900/- from M/s Communication Hub, Vikas Marg, Delhi with one year warranty from date of purchase. It is stated that after purchase, Complainant found that he has been befooled to purchase the said phone because the phone was not only suffering from many inherent manufacturing defects like hanging, non-responsive touch-screen etc. but various other problems from day one. On 21.08.17 Complainant visited Opposite Party No.2 service centre and took the phone for repair but did not issue any receipt or work sheet and after checking the phone and confirming that there is problem and carried services and returned the handset stating that the phone will work.  The Complainant had also sent letters to Opposite Parties requesting to do the needful but no reply received from them. After few days, Complainant again visited other service centre of Opposite Party No.1, Laxmi Nagar but they did not carry the service stating that you have got serviced at Opposite Party No.2 and advised to go to Opposite Party No.2 and the staff sitting at counter stated that there is some liquid in phone and they can only update software and nothing else could be done and no surety is given that the phone will work properly or not then the Complainant returned back with all the problems still existing. It is stated that mobile in question is defective and despite being under warrantee and despite that the Opposite Party No.2 having carried services, the defects could not be removed. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for the price of the mobile phone in question of Rs. 21,700/- with interest @18 % p.a. and Rs. 75,000/- for mental harassment as well as litigation expenses.  

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed common written statement. It is contended by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant had never submitted the subject hand set for repairs to the Opposite Parties and the Complainant had made false allegations against them. The Opposite Parties further submit that answering Opposite Parties have always been ready to provide services to the Complainant as per warranty policy, hence, no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice can be alleged against them. The Opposite Parties has also raised the objection on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Parties filed affidavit of Sh. Anup Kumar Mathur, AR of Opposite Parties wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
7. The case of the Complainant is that the mobile in question, purchased from Opposite Party No.1, was not only suffering from many inherent manufacturing defects like hanging, non-responsive touch-screen etc. but various other problems from day one. It is alleged that opposite Party No.2 (service centre of Opposite Party No.1 ) took the phone for repair but did not issue any receipt or work sheet and after checking the phone and confirming that there is problem and carried services and returned the handset stating that the phone will work. It is the case of the Complainant that mobile in question is defective and despite being under warranty and despite that the Opposite Party No.2 having carried services, the defects could not be removed. Hence, Opposite Parties has been deficient in services.
8. On the other hand the case of the Opposite Parties is that though, it is matter of record that the product in question was purchased by the Complainant from them, it is denied that the Complainant came to them for repairs and they carried the repairs. It has been contended by Opposite Parties that the Complainant had never submitted the subject hand set for repairs to the Opposite Parties and the Complainant had made false allegations against them.
9. From the perusal of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, it is revealed that the Complainant has not substantiated his allegations with any evidence whatsoever. The Complainant has only filed the purchase invoice of the product in question. The Complainant has not produced any evidence such as job sheets etc.in rebuttal of the contention made by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant had never submitted the subject hand set for repairs to the Opposite Parties and the Complainant had made false allegations against them. The Complainant has failed corroborate his allegation that the mobile in question was defective and it was repaired by the Opposite Parties, hence there was inherent manufacturing defect. The Complainant has neither submitted any job sheet showing the defect diagnosed and repairs done by Opposite Parties to prove his averments nor has he filed any cogent evidence that complaint was lodged with the Opposite Parties which was duly received by the Opposite Parties but no action was taken.
10. The Complainant has not filed any other proof whatsoever in support of his claim that the product in question was defective and the repairs were done by Opposite Parties but failed to resolve the issue making Opposite Party liable to be deficient in services. The Complainant has also failed to prove that there was inherent manufacturing defect in the product in question as alleged.
11. In this context, we would like to place reliance on the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SGS India Ltd v. Dolphin International Ltd. (Oct 6, 2021) wherein it is upheld that “ the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the Complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the Complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.” The Division Bench in above cited case relied on its judgment reported in Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. (2000 1 SCC 66) wherein it held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.
12. In view of above, we find that the contentions raised by the Complainant in the complaint have not been substantiated /corroborated by sufficient documentary evidence and the onus being on the Complainant to prove his case, the Complainant has miserably failed to discharge the onus.
13. In view of the above facts and discussion, we are of the considered view that no case is made out for deficiency in services against any of the Opposite Parties.
14. Thus, in view thereof, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

15. Order announced on 15.05.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)              Member

(Adarsh Nain)        Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President