Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/830

Sunny Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India - Opp.Party(s)

15 Dec 2014

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                      Date of institution                      :   10.12.14

Complaint Case No-830/2014                                                                        Date of order                              :   12.8.16

 

In the Matter of

 

Sunny Kumar,

F-314, Sudarshan Park,

Moti Nagar, New Delhi.                                                                                  COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

The Managing Director,

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th Floor, Tower C,

Vipul Tech Square,  Golf Course Road,

Gurgaon, Sector-43.                                                                                        OPPOSITE PARTY-1

 

The Manager,

Carezone,

Samsung Authorised Service Center,

3/4, West Patel Nagar, Near Metro Pillar No.209,

Opp. KalingaElectronics, New Delhi.                                                              OPPOSITE PARTY-2

 

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

 

            Brief facts as stated are that complainant purchased one mobile handset SM Galaxy Core i8262 with EMEI No.359710055050901 for sale consideration of Rs.13,100/- vide invoice No.2348/11679 dated 22.2.14 from The Mobile Store Ltd. Rgd. Dealer of Opposite Party-1 in the name of his brother Sh. Alok Sangar.  But after 3 days, the mobile handset developed some fault.  The complainant informed the dealer, who told him to deposit the mobile handset with Opposite Party-2.  The complainant deposited the handset for repairs with Opposite Party-2.   But again after 20 days same fault developed.  The complainant on 27.6.14 again deposited the mobile handset with Opposite Party-2.  The body of the mobile handset was changed and there was tempering with EMEI Number .  He told Opposite Party-2 about tampering.  The handset was again deposited on 6.8.14 and 8.9.14 for repair of  same fault with Opposite Party-2.   But till today the mobile handset is neither repaired by the Opposite Party nor returned .    Hence, the present complaint for direction to the Opposite Parties to refund the  cost of mobile handset with interest and pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for financial/monitory losses/harassment and mental agony and Rs.1000/- cost of litigation. 

 

            Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties1 & 2  appeared and filed joint reply to the complaint while raising preliminary objections that the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer u/s 2(d) of the  Consumer Protection Act-1986,that the  complainant has concealed true facts , the complaint is false, frivolous and pressure tactics to extract money.   On merits, the Opposite Parties-1 & 2 asserted that the mobile handset was purchased by Mr. Alok Sangar which is concealed by the complainant. The Opposite Parties-1 & 2  have made best efforts to resolve the issue and grievance of the   complainant.   The Opposite Parties-1 & 2 asserted that they are ready to resolve the issue of the  mobile handset as per terms and conditions of warranty policy.  But the issue relates to physical damage of the handset which is not covered under warranty policy.

  The complainant filed rejoinder to reply of opposite parties while controverting the stand taken by the opposite parties and reiterated his stand taken in the complaint.   The complainant once again prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund cost of the mobile handset alongwith interest and compensation with litigation expenses.  

 

            When the parties were asked to lead evidence in support of their respective case,  the complainant filed affidavit dated 4.11.15, wherein he once again narrated the facts of the  complaint and once again prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund cost of mobile handset along with interest and pay compensation and litigation expenses.   The complainant in support of his case relied upon copy of invoice dated 22.2.14, job sheets    dated27.6.14, 6.8.14 and 8.9.14, copy of letter dated 16.9.14 and copy of e-mails dated 19.9.14 and 5.11.14 and copy of final reminder/notice dated 27.11.14.  From the  perusal of affidavit and documents it reveals that one mobile handset SM Galaxy Core i8262 was purchased in the name of Alok Sangar for sale consideration of Rs.13,100/- vide invoice dated 22.2.14.  It further, reveals that the handset developed fault and was deposited on 27.6.14  and again 6.8.14  and 8.9.14 within warranty.  However, till date the mobile handset is neither repaired nor returned to the complainant.  Whereas the right of the Opposite Parties to lead evidence was struck off vide order dated 31.3.16. 

We have heard counsel for complainant at length and have gone through the complaint, reply, affidavit and documents submitted by the complainant and Opposite Parties.  

 

            Before proceeding further, it is worthwhile to reproduce the relevant part of section 2(d)(i) of the  Consumer Protection Act-1986

Section2(d)(i) “Consumer”  means any person who,

 Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes an user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promise or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose,or

From the bare reading of section 2(d)(i) it is clear that complainant is covered under the definition of Consumer being real brother of Alok Sangar and he is using the mobile handset.   

             

            From the unrebutted version the complainant has been able to show that he purchased one mobile handset SM Galaxy for sale consideration Rs.13,100/- vide invoice dated 22.2.14.  The mobile handset developed some fault.  The complainant deposited the handset with Opposite Party-2 on 27.6.14  for repairs within warranty.  The mobile handset was again deposited with Opposite Party-2 on 6.8.14 and 8.9.14 with same fault for repairs.      But the mobile handset is not returned to the complainant.  

 

There is no reason to disbelieve the exparte evidence produced by the complainant.  The complainant from the affidavit, invoice and job sheets has been able to show that on 22.2.14 his brother Alok Sangar purchased one mobile handset of make SM Galaxy for sale consideration of Rs.13,100/- vide invoice No.2348/11679 for use of the complainant.  The mobile handset developed some fault.  Therefore, the complainant deposited the mobile handset with the Opposite Party-2 on 27.6.14, 6.8.14 and 8.9.14 for repairs but they did not return the handset till today.The  Opposite Party-1 is ready to resolve the grievance of complainant.  But did not redress the grievance of the complainant. The complainant has suffered loss of mobile handset.    The complainant is also deprived of his valuable right to use the mobile handset.  Therefore, there is negligence and deficiency in service on part of Opposite Parties-1 & 2.   Hence, the complainant is entitled for Rs.13,100/- as cost of mobile handset.   He is also entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- for mental pain, agony sufferings and litigation expenses. 

 

            In light of above discussion and observations, the complaint succeeds and is hereby allowed.  The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,100/- cost of mobile handset with interest at the rate 9% per annum from filing the present complaint till actual realization of the amount and Rs.5,000/- for mental pain, agony and sufferings and litigation expenses.   They are jointly and severely liable to pay the amount.

 

Order pronounced on   : 12.8.2016

 

 

• Compliance of the order be made within the 30 days after receipt of the order.

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                               (URMILA GUPTA)                   ( R.S.  BAGRI )

  MEMBER                                            MEMBER                               PRESIDENT