Delhi

New Delhi

CC/321/2014

Sh.Vishal Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Samsung India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jul 2015

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/321/14                                                                                                                                                                               Dated:

In the matter of:

SH.VISHAL JAIN,

R/O  58 GANDHI SADAN,

MANDIR MARG, PANCHKUNIYA ROAD,

NEW DELHI-01

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

 

1.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, A-25, GROUND FLOOR,

FRONT TOWER, MOHAN COOPERATIVE, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SUITES,

NEW DELHI-110044.  

 

2.Mr. SUMIT SETHI, ASHOKA TELECOM,

21/1, SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH MARG,

 OPPOSITE CENTRAL BANK, NEW DELHI-01

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

ORDER 

MEMBER: RTU GARODIA

 

The complaint pertains to defect in mobile phone, manufactured by OP.

The brief facts of complaint are that complainant has purchased a mobile Samsung REX90 model No.S5296, on 23.6.2013 from OP-2 (receipt annexed).  The complainant faced certain problems regarding software with the phone and subsequently took it to the service centre.  He was informed that the said phone was manufactured in China and as such, they were unable to service the phone.   A complainant was therefore field in this Forum filed.

Summons was issued from the Forum and was returned with the remarks”Lene se Inkaar“ by OP-2 and thereafter OPs were proceeded ex-parte on 3.7.14. 

Perusal of the complaint reveals that the phone does not reflect caller’s ID.   It just shows the phone numbers from which the calls are being made.  The complainant was made to understand that the product was manufactured for sale in China and as such OP-1 based in India is unable to service or rectify the defect.

 It is clear case of mis-selling of phone by misrepresentation made by seller OP-2 about the characteristic of the product.  In order to make a sale to a potential customer, seller has indulged in ethically questionable practice.  He has deliberately suppressed material information that the mobile was specifically made for sale in China.

We, therefore, hold OP-2 guilty of indulging in miselling of product and unfair trade practice and direct OP-2 to refund Rs.5,500/- along with 9% interest from date of purchase till payment.  We also award Rs.20,000/- as compensation for unparallel harassment mental and agony due to  unethical, deceptive and fraudulent practices being carried by OP-2.  We also award Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action will be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

        Pronounced in open Court on 27.07.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

         

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER