Delhi

North East

CC/109/2019

Anoop Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sai Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

18 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No.109/19

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Anoop Kumar, R/o 83C Pocket H, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.     3.	Sai Electronics Shop No.28, Pocket B & E DDA Market, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095   Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 6th Floor, DLF Centre SansadMarg, New Delhi-110001   B2X Service Solution India Pvt. Ltd. 1, New Rajdhani Enclave, 1st Floor, New Delhi-110092	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

04.12.19 25.07.23 18.09.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Anil kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased mobile phone of Opposite Party No.2 from Opposite Party No.1 company on 04.05.19 having bill invoice no. SE/1161/19-20 amounting to Rs. 17,000/-. The Complainant stated that he found a pink dot on top left corner of mobile in question on 27.07.19. The Samsung service centre provided a service reference no. 8462103382 to Complainant on 29.08.19. The Complainant stated that he visited Opposite Party No.3 on 29.08.19 and the said mobile was checked by Bholu Bharti and he told Complainant to replace the screen and same is not covered under warranty he had to pay charges Rs. 8,000/-. The Complainant also met with manager Sharfaraj and he also examined the said mobile and advised him to talk to customer care official Devender and Devender said Sharfaraj that phone is in excellent condition and should be covered under warranty but Sharfaraj said that samsung has instructed to not cover any type of display issue under warranty. On 30.07.19 Complainant again called Opposite Party No.2 samsung service centre and asked for call by senior executive. The Complainant again called customer care and provided his no. for calling and also an alternative no. for calling. The Complainant called customer care many times and talked to senior executive and he told that the said mobile was not covered under warranty and he will forward his request to Samsung head quarter. On 31.07.19 he received request from Samsung head quarter and they committed to resolve the issue as soon as possible. On 01.08.19 official of Samsung head quarter contracted Complainant and asked for original bill to be sent on mail and the Complainant sent the same on mail address provided by official of Samsung head quarter. The Complainant stated that he called Samsung head quarters several times but of no use. He got reply that Samsung has not given any warranty cover for any display fault. On 05.08.19 a call received from Samsung head quarter and a final decision was made by Samsung that only 25 % discount to total cost of whole display was given and if you denied no further help will be provide. The Complainant stated that on 09.08.19 Complainant mail the Opposite Party No.2 to resolve the problem but no reply has been received. Complainant sent legal notice to all three Opposite Parties on 25.09.19 but of no use. The Opposite Party No.2 has refused to repair the mobile phone. Hence this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for the cost of mobile phone of Rs. 17,000/- with interest @ 18 % from the date of its purchase till the date of payment. He also prayed for Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges and Rs. 25,000/- for mental harassment.
2.  None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 to contest the case therefore, Opposite Party No. 1 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 05.01.23. The Opposite Party No.2 was also proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 13.03.23.

Evidence of the Complainant

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

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant in person and we have also perused the file.The averments made by the Complainant in the complaint are supported by his affidavit and documents filed by him. On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 05.01.23 and 13.03.23. Therefore, the averments made in the complaint are to be believed.
5.  In view of the above, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No.2 is directed to pay the cost of the mobile phone in question of Rs. 17,000/- to the Complainant with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery and Complainant is directed to return the mobile to the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 is further directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
6. Order announced on 18.09.23.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President