Delhi

StateCommission

FA/154/2014

ARUN SETHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

25 May 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:25.05.2015

First Appeal- 154/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 27.12.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 1053/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave, New Delhi)

Shri Arun Sethi,

S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Sethi,

R/o 221, Surya Niketan,

Vikas Marg Extn.,

Delhi-110092.

                                                                 ….Appellant

Versus

1. The General Manager,

Samsung Electronics India (P) Ltd.,

Gurgaon, Haryana.

 

2. New Galaxy (India),

12/124, Geeta Colony,

Delhi-110031.

 

3. Mr. Brijeshwar Singh,

C/o Maa Vaishnavi Services,

Shakarpur, Vikas Marg,

Delhi-110092.

                                                                                  ….Respondents

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. In this appeal, challenge is made to order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave, New Delhi (in short, “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 1053/2012 whereby the direction has been given to respondent No.1/OP-1 for refund of Rs.4,500/- towards cost of set of mobile phone to the appellant/complainant.
2. The facts leading to the filing of present appeal are as under:

            The appellant herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum had filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short,’the Act’) alleging therein that he had purchased a CDMA mobile phone of the make of respondent No.1/OP for Rs.4,500/- from respondent No.2/OP-2 on 16.12.12.  On 17.12.12, the said phone stopped working. The appellant had taken the said phone to respondent No.3/OP-3 for repairs.  After inspection, respondent-3/OP-3 told that there was no problem with the hand set and problem was with Sim Card connection as the appellant was issuing MTS connection.  The appellant had alleged that the same sim card was functioning properly with other CDMA mobile sets of other manufactures and the problem was with the hand set purchased by him and as such had prayed for refund of cost of mobile set and compensation of Rs.51,000/- besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

        The complaint was contested by respondent No.1 & respondent No. 3 i.e. OP-1 & OP-3 by filing written statement. The stand of  respondents was that the appellant had purchased CDMA mobile phone for Rs.4,500/- after having fully satisfied with the set.  Relying upon its engineers report, it was alleged that the sim connection in mobile set in question was compatible with CDMA sim connection only. It was alleged that the appellant/complainant was using the MTS connection which was a GSM sim/connection and said sim/connection did not work in the CDMA hand set.

            Rejoinder was filed by the appellant/complainant. Both the parties had filed evidence in the form of affidavits.

            After hearing both the parties, the Ld. District Forum ordered for the refund of Rs.4,500/- towards cost of mobile set to the appellant.  However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no order of compensation and litigation expenses was passed. 

3. Aggrieved with the same present appeal is filed.
4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant had suffered harassment at the hands of the respondent in as much as new mobile set gave problems to him and despite that no compensation was awarded to him by the Ld. District Forum. It is contended that in the facts and circumstances, District Forum ought to have awarded compensation to the appellant.
5. Ld. Counsel for respondent No. 1 and 3 has submitted that there is no problem with mobile set purchased by appellant. It is contended that the fault was with the sim of appellant as he was not using compatible sim/connection as such he was not entitled even for the refund of cost of mobile set. It is contended that considering the facts of the case, the Ld. District Forum has rightly not granted the compensation/cost to him. It is contended that the complaint was filed out of greed to extract more money from respondent

No. 1.

6. We have heard the submissions made.
7. It is admitted position that appellant had purchased a CDMA mobile phone (DMH) from respondent No. 2. It is also admitted position that appellant had not used the CDMA sim connection for the said phone.  According to the respondent No. 1 to 3, the hand set in question was compatible with CDMA sim connection only. It is also admitted position that appellant was using the MTS connection which had a GSM sim connection. The stand of respondent is that the GSM Connection does not work for the CDMA handset. The stand of respondent is based on its engineers report. The stand of appellant before District forum was that the same sim i.e. GSM sim/connection was functioning property with other CDMA mobile sets of other manufacturers.  However, nothing was placed on record to substantiate the same either before District Forum or before this Commission.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the District Forum has rightly not awarded compensation and expenses of litigation to the appellant.  We do not find it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order.  The appeal stands dismissed.

 

9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

 Member

 

       

ak