Delhi

East Delhi

CC/281/2017

VASHUDHA KANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG - Opp.Party(s)

30 Apr 2019

ORDER

                 CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

        CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                    Consumer Complaint no.           281/2017

                                                                                    Date of Institution                   16/08/2017

                                                                                    Order Reserved on                  30/04/2019

                                                                                    Date of Order                          03/05/2019 

In matter of

Mrs Vasudha Kansal          

R/o 194 Second Floor

Hargovind Enclave Delhi 110092.………..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-M/ The Manager

M/s MAA Vashnavi E Services Pvt Ltd.

1, New Rajdhani Enclave 1^st Floor

Nr Preet Vihar Metro Station, Delhi 110092

 

2-M/a Samsung India Pvt Ltd.

20^th to 24^th Floor Two Horizon Centre

Golf Course Road, Sec. 43 DLF Ph V

Gurgaon Haryana 122202…………………………………..Opponents   

 

Complainant’ Advocate                           In Person   

Opponent’s 1&2 Advocate                      Prashant Arora –Kapoor & Co.   

 

Quorum            Sh Sukhdev Singh          President

                         Dr P N Tiwari                 Member

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur         Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                          

Complainant purchased Samsung mobile vide model no. Samsung Galaxy J 500 FZDDNSS/no. RZ8H711PFHJ from Agmatel India Pvt Ltd at G 119 V3S Mall Vikas Marg Delhi 110092 on 03/09/2016 for a sum of Rs 9902/- after discount (Ex CW1/1) vide bill no. S16/1812 having IMEI no. 359593076073502 in the name of Akash Gupta & Co. a chartered account’s firm. The said mobile had one year standard warranty provided by seller on behalf of manufacturer//OP2. After using over one year developed problem in display screen, so visited OP1/authorised service centre  who told after inspection of mobile that the display screen was damaged so would require replacement after paying its charges Rs 3001/- though mobile was under warranty (Ex CW1/2).  

It was stated that after using for about one month said mobile again developed problem so again taken to OP2, but this time OP2 told that the said mobile had physical damage, so rough estimate of Rs 3000/- was which was denied and made complaint to OP2 via email (Ex CW1/2) and thereafter OP22 replied and asked complainant to submit mobile with OP1, but it was asked to pay the repair cost as mobile had physical damage (Ex CW1/3). Complainant again sent email to OP2 for getting her phone free of cost (Ex CW1/4), but OP-1 refused to repair as mobile was under warranty. Seeing deficient services of OP, filed this complaint and claimed refund of the cost of mobile Rs 11140/- and compensation Rs 10,000/- for mental harassment with Rs 1,000/- as litigation charge. 

OP1 & 2 submitted written statement jointly and denied all the allegations alleged against them. It was stated that due to physical damage, warranty was void and replacement cost was asked for which complainant refused, so there was no deficiency in services on the part of OP1.

It was also submitted that the said mobile was in the name of complainant and the purchaser was a chartered accountancy co. and the same mobile was being used for commercial use. So complainant was not a consumer as per the Act. It was stated that instead of getting her mobile repaired, asked for refund of the cost of the mobile which was not as per the policy of OP2. The said mobile was not insured for loss or damages including liquid or physical. Also there was no manufacturing defect ever reported, so there was no reason to replace the mobile. OP had also submitted customer’s satisfaction report and feedback form (Ex OPW2/ C&D). OP also relied on citation Sushila Automobiles Ltd vs Dr Birendra Narain & others, 3(2010)CPJ 130(NC). As here in this case, the said mobile physical damages, but no manufacturing defect. Hence, this complaint has no merit and so deserves to be dismissed. 

Complainant filed her rejoinder where she denied all the replies made by OP1&2. She also submitted evidences on her own affidavit and reaffirmed on oath that after relying on cash memo CW1/1 and service report CW1/2, her mobile was not serviced by OP1 as the said mobile was under warranty. So all facts of her complaint were correct and true and claim be awarded in her favour. 

OP1&2 jointly submitted evidence through Mr anup Kumar Mathur, AR with OP 1 &2 and stated on oath that OP had worked as per terms and condition set by manufacture /OP2 and service engineer with OP1. Complainant had put all baseless allegations on OP1 &2 whereas OP relied on warranty conditions and service reports. It was submitted that complainant had paid for screen damage, but refused to rectify physical damage in her mobile which was never covered under any warranty conditions. Hence there were no merits and all allegations were baseless, so complaint be dismissed.

Arguments were heard from both the party counsels and after perusal of records on file, order was reserved.   

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was observed that said mobile was purchased by a chartered accountancy co. and was used for commercial purpose, but complainant had no where stated that she was using for her livelihood. That being so this complaint has no merit so complaint deserves dismissal, so dismissed without any order to cost.

The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 (6) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 ( in short CPR)  and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of CPR.

 

 

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                               Sukhdev Singh  President