District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 568/2019.
Date of Institution: 22.11.2019
Date of Order:.11.07.2023.
Smt. Archana Singhla W/o Shri Kumar Chand Singla R/o H.NO. 286, Sarai Khawaja, P.O. Amarnagar, Faridabad – 121003.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Shri Aggarwal Communication, Main Market, Sarai Khawaja, Tilpat road, Faridabad – 121003 through its proprietor.
2. Bajaj Finserve Ltd., Second floor, SCO-57, Sector-31, Pristine Mall, Faridabad – 121001 through its Director/Authorized Signatory.
3. Teleriksson Gallery, (Samsung Authorized Service Centre), SCO-9, First floor, Sector-16, Faridabad through its Authorized Signatory.
4. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20th to 24th floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF-V, Gurgaon – 122202 through its Director/Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite parties
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Saurabh Kumar, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.3 become proforma opposite party on 12.09.2022.
Sh. K.S.Rathore, counsel for opposite parties Nos.2 and 4.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone marka Samsung A50 colour White IMEI No. 356129103010705 vide invoice No. 5172 dated 26.05.2019 for a sum of Rs.19,400/- from the opposite party No.1 by making the down payment of Rs.4,500/- to the opposite party No.1. The said mobile was financed by the opposite party No.2 on the monthly installment of Rs.1940/- and the opposite party No.2 also insured the said mobile phone with them by giving the assurance to the complainant that as and when the said phone would not do the work properly or will get any defect, then they would bear all the expenses in this regard and for that purpose the opposite party No.2 had charged extra from the complainant except the financed amount. Hence, they had charged Rs.2,215/- in first instalment including insurance charges. The complainant had made the instalment of the said mobile phone and thereafter in the month of July 2019 the said mobile had stopped to run and create the problem for smoothing running. Thereafter, the complainant approached to the opposite party No.1, who advised the complainant to approached the opposite party No.3 i.e. authorized service centre of Samsung company. Thereafter, the complainant approached to the opposite party No.3, who taken the mobile phone of the complainant in their custody for repairing purpose vide tax invoice No.4286195645 dated 08.07.2019 and also provide the rough estimate of repairing of the said mobile phone as Rs.16,046.01 paise vide claim No. 4286195645 dated 08.07.2019. When the complainant requested them that the said mobile phone was under warranty hence, no charges charges by them for repairing of the said mobile phone but they always delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and did not repair the mobile phone of the complainant till date and the said mo bile phone of the complainant was lying in dead condition till date. Even the complainant made several complaints to the opposite party No.4 for repairing his above said mobile phone without any extra charges or replace the said defective phone with a new one but they also did not give any heed to the genuine requests and reminders of the complainant. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) to get repair the said mobile phone without any extra charge or replace the same with a new one;
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had not come before this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and had suppressed the actual and material facts before this Hon’ble Forum. It was submitted that the answering opposite party wa sonly the proprietor of Shri Aggarwal Communication and selling out the respective mobile phone etc. on his shop and in case any defect in respect of the mobile phone then the manufacturing company was responsible for the same and the answering opposite party was not liable to make the compensation amount to the complainant at any point of time and the complainant intentionally and knowingly dragging the answering opposite party in the above noted false case by making the twisting story. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
2. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed 3written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that in the month of May 2019, the complainant had purchased a mobile phone form the dealer/manufacturer i.e opposite parties Nos.1,3 & 4 by availing loan of Rs.19,400/- from this opposite party vide loan account No.579DPEEN789286. The said loan was repayable vide 10 EMIs of Rs.1940/- each commencing from 02.07.2019. In order to direct deduct of EMIs from the bank account the complainant had issued Auto Debit/ NACH Mandate and as on date the said loan account stand active with outstanding amount of Rs.11,3900/- besides bouncing and late payment charges. The said fact was evident from the statement of account. The opposite party submitted that the complainant had been a defaulter towards the payment of the installments and all the EMI’s had got bounced due to the reason “insufficient funds” interalia and as a result the said loan was active which had been mentioned above as well. The opposite party submitted that the complainant had also availed an extended warranty from the insurance partner i.e. CPP Fone safe vide loan account No. 579DFSEN97055 copy of which was duly provided by the insurance partner to the complainant. The opposite party was a financier and was provided loan to the needy persons thus the issue of the defect/installation etc. issued to the responsibility of the dealer/manufacturer and not the financier. Opposite party No.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Shri Raj Kumar, counsel for the complainant has made a statement that “I want to make Teleriksson Gallery i.e opposite party No.3 as performa party’ vide order dated 12.9.2022..
5. Opposite party No.4 put in appearance through counsel and filed 3written statement wherein Opposite party No.4 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the unit had been duly checked by the engineer of service center of answering company and same had been found liquid damaged and as per warranty policy conditions, the unit was out of warranty and a job sheet had been duly issued to that effect. but knowing well the all circumstances, the complainant was making false story just only to grab illegal benefits of her own wrong. The complainant in regards to complaint regarding the unit in question approached to the answering company vides call No. 4286195645 on 08.07.2019 and reported handset dead problem in her unit. The engineer of the answering company checked the unit and found that the unit was damaged due to liquid logging i.e contact with any type of liquid. The engineer told that the warranty of the unit had got barred due to liquid logging and the repair of the unit should be on chargeable basis. But the complainant refused to pay the charges of repair and took her unit back without repair. After that, no issue had been reported regarding the unit in question and thereafter the answering came to know about the present complaint. Opposite party No.4 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
8. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Shri Aggarwal Communications & Others. with the prayer to: a) to get repair the said mobile phone without any extra charge or replace the same with a new one; b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Smt Archana Singla,Ex.C-1 – Adhar card, Ex.C-2 – Tax invoice, Ex.C-3 – Tax invoice, Ex.C-4 - claim No. 4286195645 dated 08.07.2019, Ex.C-5 – complaint, Ex.C-6 – courier receipt,
Instead of filing evidence on behalf of the opposite party No.1, Shri Saurabh S/o Sh. Satish Chand Aggarwal, R/o H.No.214, Banti Wali Gali, Saray Khawaja, Faridabad had made a statement that the compromise has been effected between the parties and I tender letter dated 13.08.2022, Annexure A and statement dated 08.09.2020 Annexure B in the present file vide order dated 03.05.2023.
Opposite party No.2 has placed on record Ex.RW2/A – affidavit of Ms. Shivani Garg, authorized representative Bajaj Finance Ltd., Ist floor, SCF, 35, BRS Nagar, Opp. police station, Ludhiana, Ex.RW2/1 - letter dated 28.05.2019, Ex.RW1/2 – Pavti dated 16.1.2019, Ex.RW2/3 – Statement of account,
As per evidence of opposite party No.4, Ex.RW4/A – affidavit of Shri Rajeev Gupta C/o Samsung India electronic Pvt. Ltd Gurgaon, Ex. R-1 - Warranty cardEx.R-2 – liquid damage indicator (litmus paper) turned pink indicating water entry into phone, Ex.R-3 – Claim No. 428619545 dated 06.07.2019, Ex.R-4 – Tax invoice. Ex.R-5 – affidavit of Shri Ravi Kumar C/o Samsung Service Center i.e. Teleriksson Gallery at Faridabad working for Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. having its Service Center at Faridabad.
9. Keeping in view of the statement of the opposite party No.1 that the compromise has been effected between the parties and I tender letter dated 13.08.2022, Annexure A and statement dated 08.09.2020 Annexure B in the present file vide order dated 03.05.2023. Hence, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed against opposite party No.4 with the direction to opposite party No.4 to replace the mobile phone in question with the same model to the complainant., subject to return the old mobile phone. There are no order as to costs. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 11.07.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
