DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.489/2012
Shri B.C. Mirchandani Senior Citizen
S/o Late Shri H.D. Mirchandani
R/o A-269, Second Floor,
Shivalik Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017. ….Complainant
Versus
- Ramji Network
(through Proprietor/ Partner or concerned)
At A-55, Shop No. 1,
Singapore Plaza,
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi.
- Lakshya Tech. Solutions Ltd.
230, 2nd Floor, Sukh Lal Market,
Near Madhuban Chowk, Pitampura,
New Delhi.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower,
Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
New Delhi-110044. ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 19.09.12 Date of Order : 04.04.18
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 21.12.2011, complainant purchased mobile phone make Samsung (5360) bearing IMEI No. 358894042500854 for Rs. 7100/- from a dealer in Karol Bagh Market. Thereafter, problems started arising in the mobile phone as detailed in the work order No. RM-12250610 dated 29.05.2012, work order No. RN-12250647 dated 05.06.2012, work order No. RM-12/250687 dated 13.06.2012 and work order No. RM-12/250717 dated 17.06.2012. Every time, OP-1 and OP-2, the service providers for Samsung phones were contacted. The problems included (1) LCD completely blank and system hanged (2) voice ear piece problem (Mic problem), auto media player on (3) auto media player on at any time without connecting to hand free device (4) display brightness very dull. On the last occasion, the complainant on 23.06.2012 went to collect his mobile phone from the service provider and he found that the body of the mobile was damaged and screen was very dull as earlier and nothing had been changed and he refused to take back the mobile phone and asked to the OPs to resolve the problem. He sent a legal notice on 18.08.2012 to the OPs in response of which the OPs sent a letter dated 22.08.2012 (sent on 24.08.2012) calling upon the complainant to take his mobile phone in defective condition. Hence pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing following directions to the OPs:-
- to refund the cost of the mobile phone to the complainant with interest @ 18% per annum.
- Pass an order as damages/ compensation for mental agony, harassment Rs. 10,000/-
- To pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as a litigation expenses to the complainant.
OPs in the joint written statement have denied the averments made in the complaint and have stated that whenever the mobile in question was found having any problems, problems were resolved; that the job sheets provided by the complainant are one sided and they are not the real job sheets provided by the OPs. It is also the case of the OPs that the complainant did not use the handset in proper way due to which the handset was creating problem. Denying deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, it is prayed that complaint be dismissed.
In the rejoinder complainant has reiterated the averments made in the complaint and has denied that he did not use the handset in a proper way due to which the handset was creating problem.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Shri Suresh Kumar, AR has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OPs.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the oral arguments of the complainant in person. We have gone through the file very carefully.
The onus to prove that the job sheets filed by the complainant on the record are not the real job sheets which were provided by OP-2 was on the OPs. However we have no hesitation in saying that the OPs have not filed any iota of oral or documentary evidence to show that the job sheets filed by the complainant are not the real ones. The copies of the job sheets as per the affidavit of the complainant are exhibits CW-1/B to CW-1/F (in fact marked as annexure-B to annexure-F). All the problems/ defects reproduced hereinabove have been mentioned in the job sheets which clearly prove that the mobile handset in question was infact defective and it had some inherent manufacturing defect. There is no iota of evidence on the record to show that the defects/ problems had arisen in the handset due to negligent handling of the handset by the complainant. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the OPs rendered deficient service in selling the handset having manufacturing defect. However, OP-1 and OP-2 are only the service providers and hence the agents of OP-3.
Therefore, we allow the complaint against OP-3 and direct OP-3 to pay Rs.7,100/- towards cost of the handset in question and to pay Rs.10,000/- in lumpsum for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP-3 shall become liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 7,100/- from the date of filing of complaint till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 04.04.18.
