DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL: 5^th  FLOOR.

KASHMERE GATE DELHI.

No. DF / Central/ 2015

Tabassum Usmani

G-21, third floor,

Abul Fazal Part I,

Jamia Nagar, Okhla

Delhi-110025                                                                   ..........Complainant

Versus

1. The Manager,

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd

CC-33, Nehru Enclave,

KA, Delhi-110019

2. The Manager, Parshant Electronics,

146 MCD Market, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110055

                                      ..........Respondent/OP

BEFORE

SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

SH. S. N. SHUKLA, MEMBER

ORDER

Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President

On 7.4.2013, the complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile set from OP2 for a sum of Rs 12050/-. It is alleged by the complainant that the handset had started giving problem from the day of its purchase.  It had the problem of shutting down and , therefore, the complainant visited OP3 who on examination of the handset had informed that the software needed to be upgraded. The problem however remained even after the up gradation of the software. It is alleged by the complainant that since problem persisted with the handset she had visited the same with the service center of OP1 and she was informed that there was a problem with the mother board. The complainant had sought the replacement of the handset but the OP did not oblige. Hence, the complaint.

     The complaint has been contested by OP nos 1 and 3 who have filed a joint reply and have claimed that there was no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

     The Ops have however admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile handset from OP2 on 17.4.2013 for a sum of Rs. 12050/-.  It has denied that the handset had not worked properly and the handset will be replaced. Paras 4 and 7 of the parawise reply are relevant for the purposes of the disposal of the complaint and are being reproduced as under:-

4.That the contents of Para no. 4 under reply of the complaint are wrong and vehemently denied by the OP no. 1 & 3 .  It is further submitted that the said defect in the mobile phone arise due to the negligence on the part of the complainant.  It is submitted that the complaint has visited only once the authorized service centre of OP no. 1 and complainant’s problem was rectified as per his satisfaction. Therefore there was no deficiency in service from the OP no. 1 & 3. It is pertinent  to mention here that the said issue was raised by the complainant after 3 months of the purchased hence the product was working fine in three months as there is no question of manufacturing defect in the said product. It is submitted further that the said problem arisen the hand set was due to mishandling of the handset. That the complainant approached resetting/ restoring the software and the handset was returned to the complainant the complainant approached the OP but no issues were found with the said handset.

7. That the contents of the para no. 8 . that the complainant has been informed by the OP no. 1 several times to collect the said handset but complainant did not do the same.  The complainant is adamant on refund of amount or replaced which is not possible under company’s policy. It is also submitted that all the problems were rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is also pertinent o mention here that the OP duly attended the problem raised by the complainant and has always been diligent in providing their services. That the OP always paid full attention to the complaint of the complainant , therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP.

The Ops have however prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 

     We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

     The complainant has placed on record an invoice dated 17.4.2013 for a sum of Rs 12050/- showing that the complainant had purchased the mobile handset manufactured by OP1 from OP2. The complainant has also placed on record a job card dated 16.7.2013 showing that  there was a major problem with the handset  as it used to switch off automatically and could not save the data. The complainant has filed her own affidavit  she has corroborated the contents of the complaint and has stated that the handset is still lying with the  Ops and has not  repaired. The handset had not work  problerly even for few months. There is no evidence onrecord that the handset will be repaired and the complainant was asked to  receive it back . No evidence /letter has been placed on record showing that the complainant was asked to receive back the mobile handset.  It appears to us that the handset sold away to the complainant had some inherent defects which  could not be corrected   when the handset was taken to the service centre. In these circumstances, the complainant was justified in seeking the replacement of the handset. We, therefore, hold the Ops deficient in rendering service to the complainant and direct OP1 as under:-

1. Replace the old handset with a new one immediately.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 7500/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by her which will also include the cost of litigation.

     The OP1 shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP1 fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

    Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.  File be consigned to record room.

    Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................

(S N SHUKLA)                        (RAKESH KAPOOR)

     MEMBER                              PRESIDENT