District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.416/2023.
Date of Institution:20.06.2023.
Date of Order: 29.05.2024.
Ravinder Kumar aged 39 years son of Shri Prem Singh, resident of House No. 663/3, Jawahar Colony, Faridabad, Aadhar card No. 9286 5586 5757, mobile No. 7011867290.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Vardman Works. Ground floor D, 54, Harsh Dev Par, Budh Vihar Delhyi North West Delhi – 110 086 through its authorized persons, mobile No. 9718414141, mobile No. 7011501801.
2. Samsung Care Service Centre, Simran Communication, Plot No. 1-D, Ist floor, Railway road, Faridabad through its authorized person.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Ravinder Kumar complainant in person.
Sh. Rajeev Bansal, counsel for opposite party No.1
Opposite party No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 21.11.2023.
Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for opposite party No.3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone of Samsung Galaxy S20 + (Cosmic Black, 8 128 gb) IMEI No. 355362113851385amounting to Rs.28,000/- on 13.06.2023 from the opposite party NO.1 and the opposite party No.1 raised the bill i.e. 45 dated 13.06.2023. After its purchased in respect of the above said mobile phone on dated 13.06.2023 in the evening time the complainant got knowledge that there was a display line problem on the screen in respect of the said mobile phone then the complainant was very surprised and the complainant on dated 14.06.2023 the complainant made the complaint to the opposite party No.1 pertaining to display line problem through whatsapp message and the complainant personally visited in the office of the opposite party No.1 and disclosed the problem of display line problems then the representative of the opposite party No.1 suggested to the complainant for the service centre and then the complainant visited in the office of opposite party No.2 for the problem of handset display problem/after updating display line show on dated 14.06.2023 for sort out the problem of the mobile phone bearing complaint/bill No. 4372523228 and assured to the complainant the problems of the mobile phone would be sorted out and the mobile phone would be delivered on 17.06.2023. On dated 17.06.2023 the opposite party No.2 had handed over the mobile set to the complainant without sort out the problems of the mobile. 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) handover the new branded set of the mobile phone of the complainant and if the opposite parties failed to handover the new branded set of the mobile phone then to make the cost of amount of the mobile phone i.e Rs.28,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant being the cost of the mobile phone set.
b) pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant while purchasing the mobile phone of Samsung Galazy S20 + (Cosmic Black, 8 GB RAM 128 GB storage) IMEI No. 355362113851385 amounting to Ras.28,000/- on 13.06.2023 from opposite party No.1 was told beforehand that the phone was a refurbished second hand model to which the complainant agreed and purchased it. The complainant checked and used the hone for a good period of 2-3 hours before purchasing it. Everything from display to sound were working perfectly on the day of purchase but suddenly when the complainant went home and out of nowhere the display went bad and dysfunctional. It was further submitted that the complainant laid a well hatched plan to extort the money of the answering opposite party as the complainant himself admitted that he used to own the same mobile phone model before and that phone also had the same display issued which he was facing which this refurbished one. The complainant took this gold opportunity to deceive the answering opposite party and exchanged the display of this newly purchased phone from his old phone from the answering opposite party. Opposite party No.1 was just a reseller and the
actual responsibility of repairing of a mobile phone lies with the opposite party No.2 i.e Samsung Care Service centre, if there was any. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Notice issued to opposite party No.2 on dated 16.11.2023 not received back either served or unserved. Tracking details filed in which it has been mentioned that “Item delivery confirmed. Mandatory period of 30 days expired. Hence, opposite party No.2 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.11.2023.
4. Opposite parties No.3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties No.3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complaint of the complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product. The alleged defect could not be determined on the simpliciter submissions of the complainant and needs in proper analysis test report to confirm the same. It was the settled position of law that an expert opinion/ cogent evidence was mandatory under section 38(2) © of consumer protection act 2019 to prove the allegations/averments made by the complainant. The complainant had miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report for the perusal of this Hon’ble Commission and in the absence of any technical report on record. The case of the complainant was that the unit in question had been sold to the complainant by opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated 13.06.2023 and as per records of the answering company, the unit in question had already been activated on dated 15.10.2020, meaning thereby the opposite party No.1 had sold a product to the complainant which was already used/activated. The answering company sells it’s product/mobiles in a sealed and packed boxes and a warning was also duly mentioned on each and every box of
the unit as “Do not accept if seal was broken”. The said warning was issued and endorsed by the answering company to protect it’s customer from the malpractice of sellers/shopkeepers of selling already activated/used products. As soon as the seal of a unit was opened and as soon as the sim card inserted and activated in a unit, it got entered into the system of the answering opposite party company about activation of unit/sim and form the date of activation, the warranty period for one year of the unit got started. It was the opposite party No.1 who had sold a unit to the complainant which had already been activated/sold on 25.10.2020. Opposite party No.3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Vardman Works & Ors.with the prayer to: a) handover the new branded set of the mobile phone of the complainant and if the opposite parties failed to handover the new branded set of the mobile phone then to make the cost of amount of the mobile phone i.e Rs.28,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant being the cost of the mobile phone set. b)pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case, the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Ravinder Kumar, Ex.C-1 – Acknowledgement of service request, Ex.C-3 – whatsapp message,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No. 1 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Gagan Jarwal, authorized person of Vardman Works at ground floor, D-54, harsh Dev Par, At – Budh Vihar, North West, Delhi, Ex.R-1 – warranty card, Ex.R-2 – Product information, Ex.R-3 – Acknowledgement of Service Request.
Opposite party No.3 led in their evidence Ex.RW3/A – affidavit of Sandeep Shajwani , authorized person, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 6th floor, DLF Center, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, Ex.R-3 – warranty card,, Ex.R-4- SIM Activation, Ex.R-5 - Acknowledgement of Service Request.
8. In this case, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to refund the phone amount which was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 of Samsung Galazy S20+(Cosmic Black, 8 128 gb) IMEI No. 355362113851385. As per the allegations of the complainant, the phone in question is not working from the date of its purchase. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 appeared in person and stated at Bar that the phone was purchased by the complainant that was refurbished phone and the phone in question was no warranty and guarantee as per the conditions were narrated to the complainant. But on the other hand, complainant in person stated at Bar that the phone was purchased because his mother can operate the phone of this model properly because the complainant has the same phone earlier. As per the evidence led by the complainant no doubt phone was not working properly and the complainant also visited the service station of that branch and as per the evidence there was a manufacturing defect in the phone and the phone was not working properly. The complainant has spent an amount of Rs.28,000/- and now he has suffering a lot due to this phone. To prove his case, the complainant led in his evidence Ex.C1 to Ex.C-3 and on the other hand, opposite party No.1 has led in their evidence Ex.R-1
to R-3 as well as opposite party No.3 led in their evidence Ex.R-3 to R-5.
9. After going through the evidence led by both the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complainant has paid Rs.28,000/- for the purchase of the phone in question. It is a huge amount of his earning. In the interest of justice, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3, jointly & severally, are directed to refund Rs.28,000/-, subject to return the old phone. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There are no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 29.05.2024. (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
