DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 357/2018
D.No._______________ Dated:________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ms. KANIKA W/o SH. BRIJ DATTA,
R/o 40/102, 1st FLOOR,
C R PARK, NEW DELHI-110015.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. M/s SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD.,
35, TRADE HOUSE, OKHLA PHASE-II,
OKHLA INDL. AREA, DELHI-110020.
2. M/s SAMSUNG SERVICE CENTER,
38 NISHANK KUNJ,
NEAR KOHAT METRO STATION,
PITAM PURA, DELHI-110034.… OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution:19.05.2018
Date of decision: 07.08.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased a Samsung A-710 Gold mobile handset of Rs.32,799/- including charger, ear phone & clear view cover A7 Gold EF-ZA710CFEGIN vide retail invoice no. IC/16
CC No. 357/2018 Page 1 of 5
-17/372 dated 05.06.2016 bearing IMEI No. 356825076481225 from Intouch Mobicare Pvt. Ltd., K-1/39, C R Park, New Delhi. The complainant further alleged that the mobile handset was giving multiple problems viz. hanging, volume problem and rapid battery discharge hence the complainant lastly contacted OP-2 on 08.05.2018 who checked the mobile handset and after inspection cleaned the mobile handset and also upgraded the software and returned the mobile handset to the complainant saying it is OK and no job card issued by OP-2 and the mobile handset was returned back on the same day stating that the software has been upgraded. The complainant further alleged that the problem continues and the set is behaving erratically and the complainant is facing numerous problems and the complainant is highly disappointed with the product performance and the complainant further alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund the cost of the mobile handset of Rs.30,000/- as well as compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment and also sought Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. OP-1 has been contesting the case of the complainant and filed written statement and submitted that the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed and there is no deficiency in service on the
CC No. 357/2018 Page 2 of 5
part of OP-1. OP-1 further submitted that the complainant has purchased a Samsung A-710 Gold Mobile handset of Rs.29,750/- (inclusive Rs.3,305/- taxes) in good condition and sealed packed conditions after having full satisfaction with the said product. OP-1 further submitted that the mobile handset was insured by OP-1 and the said product carries a warrantee for a period of one year and if there will be any issue/ problem with the said product then the company shall repair the same free of cost and in the case of damaged product or if the terms & conditions of the warrantee policy is violated then the warrantee policy shall be void and the product shall be repaired on chargeable basis paid by the complainant/customer. OP-1 further submitted that the complainant approached OP-2 on 26.09.2016 with some display problem and the complainant was informed that due to physical damage, the warrantee in respect to the said product had become void and the repairs would be chargeable and the LCD was replaced on chargeable basis as the warrantee condition does not include free repairs in case of physical damage. OP-1 further submitted that the complainant again approached OP-1 on 09.11.2017 with display damage and submitted that LCD was replaced on chargeable basis to the satisfaction of the complainant as per warrantee. OP-1 further submitted that whenever the complainant has approached OP-1 for any issue, the same was addressed by
CC No. 357/2018 Page 3 of 5
OP-1 and OP-1 is still ready to resolve the issue (if any) as per the warrantee policy.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the version of OP-1.
5. In order to prove her case, the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. Thecomplainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice dated 05.06.2016 of Rs.32,799/-(i.e. Samsung A-719 Gold of Rs.29,750/-, Charger (in box) of Rs.150/-, Ear phone (in box) of Rs.100/- & Clear View Cover A7 Gold EF-ZA710CFEGIN of Rs.2,799/-) issued by Intouch Mobicare Pvt. Ltd.
6. On the other hand, Sh. Anup Mathur,Authorized Representative of OP-1 filed affidavit in evidence which are as per defence taken by OP-1 in the written statement. OP-1 also filed copy of warrantee card cover. OP-1 also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant as well asOP-1 in the light of evidence and documents placed on record. The complainant in her rejoinder has not disputed the version of OP-1 that the complainant approached service center of OP-1 on 26.09.2016 with some display problem and the complainant was duly informed that due to physical damage, the warrantee in respect of the said product had become void and again on 09.11.2017 the LCD of the mobile handset was replaced on chargeable basis. No documents have been placed on record by the
CC No. 357/2018 Page 4 of 5
complainant in support of her case. Thus, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, we are of opinion that the complainant has failed to prove her case on merits. The case is accordingly dismissed.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 7thday of August, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 357/2018 Page 5 of 5
UPLOADED BY:-SATYENDRA JEET
