DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.224/2023

Vinay Singh @ Vijay Singh

S/o Lt. Shri Raja Ram

R/o H. No. U-30, Green Park Main

Hauz Khas, Delhi-110016.                                          .…Complainant

                                                 VERSUS

M/s Sansung India Electronics

At: 20^th to 24^th Floor

Two Horizon Centre, Gulf Course Road

Sector-43, Gurugram, Hr.-122002

Service to be effected through its

Director (s)/manager (s)/Office Bearer (s)

M/s Garg Distributors

At: AB/7, 1^st Floor, Block-A1

Safdarjung Enclave Development Area

New Delhi-110029.

Service to be effected through its

Director (s)/manager (s)/Office Bearer (s)                  ….Opposite Parties

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Present:    Adv. Sarat Behera along with complainant.

Adv. Yubraj Chatterjee proxy counsel for Adv. Prashant Arora with authority.

ORDER

Date of Institution:11.08.2023

Date of Order       : 09.12.2024.

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking replacement of the phone or the cost of phone with interest @18% per annum till realisation; Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and litigation cost.

1. It is stated by the complainant that he purchased a Samsung Mobile Phone online for Rs.79,999/- model No. Samsung 522 ULTRA DARK RED on 24.10.2022 by taking finance from Bajaj.  Copy of the bill is Annexure-B.

2. It is further stated that mobile started giving problems soon and on 05.11.2022 complainant went to the service station of OP where they repaired the phone and it was stated that it will now work properly. It is further stated that complainant again faced the same issue after four-five days and again visited the service station wherein he was advised to visit Saket Service Centre.  At Saket Service Centre the mobile was repaired and returned.

3.  It is further stated that the problems recurred and complainant visited the Saket Service Centre of the OP and sought replacement as per the terms and conditions of OP but the OP did not replace the phone.  It is further stated that the mobile phone was retained by the Service Centre of the OP at Saket and is still with them.  Copy of the terms and conditions are annexed as annexure-C.

4. It is further stated by the complainant that on numerous occasions he visited the OP to get replacement of the Phone but the complainant was avoided on one pretext or the other.  It is the case of the complainant that the said mobile has a manufacturing defect and it cannot work properly causing great harassment, inconvenience and hardship to the complainant.  It is stated by the complainant has suffered on account of deprivation, harassment, mental agony and loss and dignity.  In this regard, a legal notice was also sent by the complainant to the OP but they did not reply.

5. Right of OP to file reply was closed.

6. At the time of arguments complainant has shown SMS dated 16.12.2022 which states as under:-

“Dear Customer, your Samsung product has been successfully repaired…….”.

7. Complainant has also placed on record the invoice of the product and chat with Dunzo…

8. After the arguments both the parties were called for clarifications.  Complainant has clarified that Vinay and Vijay are the one and the same person and there is only one Aadhar number.  It is stated that OP wrongly generated the bill in the name of Vijay Singh whereas it should have been Vinay Singh.  Complainant has also placed on record emails ranging from 31.01.2023 till 13.02.2023 which shows that a product was checked by OP as has been stated in the email dated 13.02.2023 “We would like to inform you that the said unit was checked at our service centre by our service engineer and no defect has been observed in the unit.  We hence, would not be able to accede to your request for refund/replacement.  You are hence requested to collect the product from the service centre.”

9. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record. Complainant has stated in his complaint that he purchased the phone from OP 2 whereas the invoice placed on record is that of Croma. The details of the Samsung product provided in email dated 13.03.2023 on record by the complainant and the details in the invoice do not match. It seems that both pertain to different products. Similarly, complainant in his complaint has stated that he visited the service centre of OP twice whereas he has placed on record a chat with Dunzo and it was stated that the product was sent to OP for repair using Dunzo services. There is no record of the complainant visiting the service centre of OP or providing his phone to OP.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 has held the following

“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”

It is therefore, upon the complainant to initially discharge its onus to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP.  This Commission has gone through the pleadings and documents filed by the complainant and find that complainant has not been able to discharge this onus. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits.

  Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. order be uploaded on the website.