CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/467/16

          Date of Institution:- 26.10.2016 

          Order Reserved on:- 24.04.2024         

          Date of Decision:-27.06.2024    

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh.Abhishek

S/o Sh Ravi Mehra

R/o 31, Jamrudpur Auto Complex,

Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Regd. Office – 3.8/5 (122 Ratings)

Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area, New Delhi

2. V. B. Mobile Services Pvt. Ltd.

(Dealer & Authorised Service Center)

G-53, Main VikasMarg,

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 110092

.…..Opposite Parties

Per R. C. Yadav, Member

1. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile H6 Egde Bearing IMEI no.359670063005984/01 from the OP-2 and paid a sum of Rs.49,000/- vide bill no.377 dated 08.06.2015. The OP-2 is an authorised dealer of the product manufactured by the OP-1. That after the purchase of the said mobile, the said mobile was not working/functioning properly and there was defect in the charging of the mobile. The mobile set has manufacturing defects since it’s purchased along with several other defects. The complainant has informed the OP-1 and OP-2 regarding the said defect of the mobile and visited the authorised service station of OP-1 i.e. OP-2 on 02.07.2016 for repairing/rectification of the mobile. The complainant was shocked and surprised when the OP-2 has demanded Rs.10,000/- towards the repair of the said mobile despite the fact that the said mobile was within its warranty period. The mobile was under warranty and the OP should repair the defects free of cost but the OP refuse to repair the same rather misbehaved with the complainant. The complainant has visited the OP-1 and 2 several times for rectification of the defects but the OPs have not repaired the same. The complainant has visited the office of the OP-2 however the official of the OP-2 has neither repaired the mobile nor gave any satisfactorily reply rather given false assurance on one pretext or other. The said mobile is lying with the complainant as non-functional despite the fact the complainant has paid substantial amount of Rs.49000/- on its purchased and the same was still under warranty, however the OP has not repaired the said mobile. The complainant runs pillar to post for repair of his mobile and requested the OPs several times but no satisfactorily reply was given to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2. The complainant has sent a legal notice to the OPs on 14.07.2016 and requested the OPs to replace his mobile with new one or refund the cost of Rs.49,000/-. The complainant has prayed for refund of the mobile cost of Rs.49,000/- along with Rs.1 lakh for mental and physical harassment.

3. Notice was served to OP. OP-1 has filed the reply and OP-2 has not appeared and proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 03.04.2019. The OP-1 has stated that the OP-2 is the seller of the product in question and as per the complainant the said product was purchased by the complainant from OP-2. The OP-2 stated that the product does not pertain the name of the complainant, hence that is suspicious that the complainant is the actual buyer of the said product. The OP-1 has stated that OP-2 is a necessary party in the matter to validate the purchase by the complainant.The OP-1 has stated that the complaint does not fall within the definition of consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act as there is neither any manufacturing defect proved in mobile handset in question nor any deficiency in service established against the OP. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. In response to the written statement, the complainant has filed rejoinder reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and denying the allegations levelled in the written statement.

5. The complainant and OP-1 have filed affidavit of evidence as well as written arguments in support of their respective case.

6. The matter was listed for final arguments on 24.04.2024. No one has appeared on behalf of the complainant to address the arguments and Ms.YashikaKapoor, Ld. Counsel for OP-1 has appeared and address the arguments and the case was reserved for orders.

7. We have carefully considered the material on record and thoroughly perused the documents placed on record.
8. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile H6 Egde Bearing IMEI no.359670063005984/01 from the OP-2 and paid a sum of Rs.49,000/- vide bill no.377 dated 08.06.2015. The OP-2 is an authorised dealer of the product manufactured by the OP-1. That after the purchase of the said mobile, the said mobile was not working/functioning properly and there was defect in the charging of the mobile. The mobile set has manufacturing defects since it’s purchased along with several other defects. The complainant has informed the OP-1 and OP-2 regarding the said defect of the mobile and visited the authorised service station of OP-1 i.e. OP-2 on 02.07.2016 for repairing/rectification of the mobile. The complainant was shocked and surprised when the OP-2 has demanded Rs.10,000/- towards the repair of the said mobile despite the fact that the said mobile was within its warranty period. The mobile was under warranty and the OP should repair the defects free of cost but the OP refuse to repair the same rather misbehaved with the complainant. The complainant has visited the OP-1 and 2 several times for rectification of the defects but the OPs have not repaired the same. The complainant has visited the office of the OP-2 however the official of the OP-2 has neither repaired the mobile nor gave any satisfactorily reply rather given false assurance on one pretext or other. The said mobile is lying with the complainant as non-functional despite the fact the complainant has paid substantial amount of Rs.49000/- on its purchased and the same was still under warranty, however the OP has not repaired the said mobile. The complainant runs pillar to post for repair of his mobile and requested the OPs several times but no satisfactorily reply was given to the complainant. The person purchased the new mobile phone seems to be free from any defect. The complainant has requested the OPs to rectify the problem in the mobile phone but the OPs neither rectified the problem in the mobile set nor refunded the deposited amount to the complainant and this is clearly deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

9. Accordingly, we allow the complaint of the complainant anddirect the OPs to refund jointly or severally of Rs.49,000/- to the complainantalong with Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and harassment.The OPs are directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 27.06.2024.