CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/215/17

          Date of Institution:-   27.04.2017

          Order Reserved on:- 23.01.2024

                    Date of Decision:-      16.05.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Harender Nagar

S/o Late Sh. Balle Ram,

SwayamSewa Group Housing Society,

Jhilmil Colony, Shahdara Colony,

Delhi

Also At:-

B-484, Double Storey,

Near Diwakar Public School,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. M/s Samsung India Electronics Private Limited

Through its Director/Authoirsed Representative,

Having its Registered At:-

A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower,

Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

New Delhi –110044.

Also at:-

Two Horizon Centre Golf Course Road,

Sector-43, DLF Phase-V,

Gurgaon-122002, Haryana

2. M/s Shree Krishna Infotech,

Through its Proprietor/Partner,

Office At: Shop No.134, First Floor,

Mahagun Metro Mall, Vaishali,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.

3. M/s Janus Electronics,

Through its Authorised Representative/

511/12, Hindon Complex, 1^st Floor,

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh - 201012

.…..Opposite Parties

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thatOP-1 is manufacturer of Samsung mobile phones, OP-2 is the authorized dealer and OP-3 is service center of OP-1. He was tempted by the false print and media advertisement of OP-1 for promoting Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge Black water resistance phone up to 30 minutes under 5ft. of water. He made up his mind to purchase this mobile phone by keeping in view this feature he purchased this said mobile phone for OP-2 from a sum of
   Rs.56,900/-. It was assured that defect, if any, will be removed at once failing which mobile set will be replaced. The warranty of one year was also given.He faced some problem in its jack hardware after few days of purchase and made a complaint to OP-3 which conducted the detail examination and found some water moisture in the jack of mobile and replaced it free of cost. He made a compliant to customer care of OP-1 regarding the moisture in the jack and it was assured that no further problem will arise in future. He used the phone for one month. The mobile phone was soaked in rain water and switched off its own. On 08.08.2016, he visited OP-3 which was on inspection detected “fully liquid logged handset cannot power on” and told him to come back after two days. He immediately made a complaint to customer care of OP-1 and informed about the manufacturing defect and requested to replace it with new handset or refund the price of the phone. He contacted OP-3 for the status of the mobile phone and it was informed him that they will tell about the status of mobile phone but till date he has not received any call from OP-3 or after following up with OP-1. Seven months have passed without any result. The said mobile phone is still with OP-3. He has been cheated by the OPs which indulged in unfair trade practice by giving misleading advertisement. A legal notice dated 07.10.2016 was sent to the OPs. The OP-3 after a few days of the receipt of the notice assured him that his request to replace the set will be considered. He has waited further for four months but without any result. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP-1 has filed the reply with the averments that OP-1 is manufacturer of the electronic and household items. The complaint is an abuse of the process of the court. The complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Commission. The averments are vague and baseless. On 26.06.2016, complainant has purchased the mobile phone which carries a warranty for a period of one year. On 10.07.2016, the complainant has approached the service center for the first time and parts were replaced during the warranty period.On 08.08.2016, the complainant again approached the service center and technician found that mobile phone has damaged due to liquid logged so the warranty of the said mobile phone got void. The estimate repair cost was of Rs.38536/- but complainant refused to repay the repair cost and left the handset at the service center. The liquid has been made internally into the handset by many reasons that is due to overcharging in a battery or using the handset while charging. The complainant has failed to show any manufacturing defect in the mobile phone. The complainant is not a consumer under the Act. The report of technical expert is essential to show that product suffered from inherent manufacturing defect. This Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction that complainant resides at Ghaziabad and product was purchased from OP-2. The service station is of OP-3 is at Ghaziabad.The replacement policy of the company is subject to the certain terms and condition and if these conditions are not fulfilled then OP-1 is not mandated to replace the product. The product is IP68 dust and water resistance certified and water resistance up to 5ft. of water up to 30 minutes but there is rider that device may not perform under all extreme conditions. The test conducted by YouTube channels has no authenticity and validity as they can be easily doctored to increase the viewership. The advertisement annexed with the complaint is not issued by Samsung but by some other firm. The official website of the OP-1 states that mobile phone should not be exposed to salt water or ionized water and exposing the mobile phone to such conditions which may damage the mobile phone. The problem was caused due to the negligence on the part of the complainant. There is no merit in the complaint.

3. The OP-2 and 3 did not put the appearance despite service and accordingly they were proceeded ex-parte on 24.01.2018.

4. The complainant has filed rejoinder wherein he has denied the averments of written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.

5. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.
6. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and corroborated the version of complaint and placed relianceupon the documents Ex.CW1/1 to 1/6.

7. The OP-1 has filed the affidavit of Sh. Anindya Bose, AR of OP-1 and corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance upon the documents Ex.OPW1/1 to 1/4.

8. We have heardthe complainant as no one has turned up on behalf of the OPsto address the arguments.

9. The issue regarding territorial jurisdiction is taken up for disposal of this complaint.

10. The perusal of the complaint shows that the complainant resides at Shahdara, whereas registered office of the OP-1 is situated at Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi, the showroom of OP-2 is at Ghaziabad and service centre i.e. OP-3 is situated at Ghaziabad.

11. Section 11 (2) of Act says that District Forum shall have the jurisdiction where opposite party actually and voluntarily resides or personally works for gain or where cause of action wholly or in part arises.

12. The OP-1 does not reside or personally works for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission as Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate falls within the jurisdiction of PS,Badarpur and same comes under the territorial jurisdiction of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, South-II. The showroom of OP-2 is situated at Ghaziabad whereas service centre i.e. OP-3 is also situated at Ghaziabad. Both of them do not come under the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.

13. Neither the OPs reside or personally work for gain nor any cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.

14. This Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint.

15. The complaint is returned to the complainant with the direction to file it before the appropriate Commission in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of order. The complainant shall take the copy of complaint, reply, evidence and documents from this Commission as per rules for filing the same in the appropriate Commission.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 16.05.2024.