Delhi

North East

CC/215/2016

ALAM KHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAHUL TELECOM - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No. 215/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Alam Khan S/o Shri Manzoor Khan R/o H.No. 9, Gali No.1, Rajiv Nagar Extension, Mandoli, Delhi-110093.	Complainant
	Versus
1       2         3	M/s. Rahul Telecom F-1/40, DDA Flats, Sunder Nagri Delhi-110093   Maa Vaishnavi Service Centre 1,  Rajdhani Enclave, First Floor Adjacent Preet Vihar Metro Station Gate No. 1, Delhi 110092   M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd. B-1, Sector-81, Phase-2, NOIDA Distt., Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

17.08.2016 04.01.2018 05.01.2018

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

 

Order by Shri Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

ORDER

1. Complainant has filed the present complaint against M/s. Rahul Telecom (OP1), M/s Maa Vaishnavi Service Centre-(OP2) & M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd- (OP3) alleging that he had purchased a Samsung Galaxy mobile phone bearing Model A-5 IMEI No. 359932063850242 & 359933063850241  from OP1 manufactured by OP3 on 30.01.2016 for Rs. 18,000/- vide invoice No. 3880. After some time, the said mobile was found defective for paint damage, heating problem on using internet, getting hung as well as color fading etc. To get the same rectified, complainant visited OP1, which directed him to visit OP2 i.e. the service of OP3. Thereafter, the mobile phone was checked and the OP2 gave complainant an estimate cost of repair of Rs. 5,954/- dated 20.07.2016 for repairing the mobile phone. Thereafter, the complainant requested to OP2 to repair it free of charge but the said mobile phone was not repaired. Hence, the complainant moved the present complaint with the prayer for directions to OPs to refund the invoice amount of the mobile phone purchased by him, Rs. 40,000/- as compensation, Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 20,000/-  towards litigation expenses.
2. Notices were served upon all the OPs. OP1 & OP2 did not appear despite service effected upon them 17.09.2016 & 10.09.2016 respectively and hence were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 01.11.2016.
3. Written statement was filed by OP3. In which OP took the plea that the said mobile phone was sold by OP1 to the complainant in good and satisfactory condition and any fault therein was due to mishandling by the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP3. OP3 further stated that the said mobile phone was used by the complainant for more than six months and since the said mobile phone is broken, therefore the service engineer of OP3 had given an estimate letter of repair for the same. The OP further took the plea that the complainant has failed to establish any manufacturing defect in the said mobile.
4. Rejoinder was filed by complainant in rebuttal to the written statement filed by OP3 in which the complainant reiterated his claim case and stated that OP2 being the service centre and OP3 being the manufacturer of mobile phone are liable to pay Rs. 18,000/- with interest from the date of purchase of the mobile in question i.e. 30.01.16, Rs. 60,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and                     Rs. 20,000/- as the cost of litigation.
5.  Complainant and & OP3 filed their respective affidavits of evidence exhibiting relevant documents in support of their case / defence.
6. Written arguments were filed by complainant and OP3 on 08.03.2017. Complainant also filed copy of warranty card also on 23.08.2017 in support of his claim.
7. We have heard the arguments forwarded by both the parties and perused the documents placed on record by complainant and OP3 and also terms and conditions mentioned in warranty card provided by complainant. It is clearly mentioned that the repair and replacement of mobile phone was covered in the warranty card’s terms & conditions but OP2 & OP3 didn’t repair/ replace the defective mobile phone and instead alleged that the said mobile phone was in broken stage and has been mishandled by the complainant. The OPs failed to prove any mishandling of the said mobile phone allege qua the complainant. We have seen the mobile handset in question and its physical condition belie any mishandling or breakage. Therefore, we find no force in the defence taken by the OPs and are of the considered opinion that the complainant has successfully establishes his case against the OPs who were unjustified in raising estimate cost of repairs and demanding the same from the complainant for repairing the mobile in question.
8. We therefore hold the OPs guilty for deficiency in service and direct all the OPs jointly and severally to in the capacity of seller, service centre and manufacturer to refund Rs. 18,000/- towards the cost of the mobile alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization to the complainant. We also award a sum of  Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation. Let the order be complied within 30 days from receipt of copy of this order. 
9.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10.   File be consigned to record room.
11.   Announced on  05.01.2018   

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member