Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/804/2021

Gagandeep Singh Cheema - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anmol Watches & Electronics Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhwinder Singh

01 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/804/2021
Date of Institution	:	22.11.2021
Date of Decision	:	1/02 /2024

 

Gagandeep Singh Cheema Son of Sh Tehal Singh Resident of House No 2393/1, Sector 40-C Chandigarh.

 

Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Ltd., SCO No. 1005. Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. Through its Proprietor

 

2. Mobile Solutions (service Center), SCO No. 48, Phase-V, Mohali. Through its Manager/authorized signatory

 

3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Registered office at A-25, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi through its Manager.

Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Advocate for complainant
	:	OP No.1&2 exparte
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for OP No.3.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that on 5.10.2021  the complainant purchased one mobile handset make Samsung Galaxy model A22 5G (hereinafter to be referred as subject  mobile) from OP No.1 for a sale consideration of Rs.18000/- by obtaining loan from HDFC bank  on payment of EMI of
   Rs.1559.66/- for 12 months. However,  after 2-3 days  of its purchase the subject mobile started giving problem  while using the same in calling sensor as the same was not properly working and the screen remains off during call, mic problem, echo in outgoing voice to the caller and  low battery backup. In order to resolve the above mentioned problem, on 8.10.2021 the complainant approached the OP No.2 who returned the subject mobile and did not attend the complainant properly nor had issued any job card.  The complainant was facing the said problem continuously and he again approached the OP No.2 on 11.10.2021  and on the several requests of the complainant OP No.2 agreed  to issue job card  to provide service and checked the subject mobile and assured the complainant to repair the same within one or two hours. The copy of job card is annexed as Annexure C-3. Thereafter the complainant received a call from customer care of OP No.3  who conveyed the complainant that the claim for replacement has been rejected by OP No.3 and directed to pickup the subject mobile from OP No.2.  On the same day the complainant approached OP No.2 and picked up the subject mobile as there was no other option for him.  However, on checking the subject mobile it was found that problems were still persisting and  on 22.10.2021 the complainant again approached OP No.3 by sending mails and on 25.10.2021  the complainant again submitted the subject mobile with the OP No.2 who issued job card  Annexure C-4. Again on 27.10.2021  the complainant was informed by one Rahul Yadav of OP No.3  that the subject mobile has been repaired  and asked the complainant to pick up the same from OP No.2.  On 9.11.2021 the complainant was informed by  one Rahul Rana about rejection of claim of replacement. Again on 14.11.2021 another problem occurred in the handset and the complainant approached to OP No.3 through email alongwith video but till date the problem has not been resolved by the OPs.  The copies of emails  alongwith CD are annexed as Annexure C-6 and C-7. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs  No.1&2 were properly served and when they did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 14.11.2022.
3. OP No.3 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, concealment of fact. It is alleged that the service was provided to the complainant every time whenever he approached but since no defect was noticed in the subject mobile and the same was informed to the complainant every time but he was adamant to replace the subject mobile  and the request was denied as there was no replacement warranty, and thus, the complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed. Moreover,  the complainant has not produced any expert report showing that there was any manufacturing defect  in the subject mobile. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP No.3.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments on record.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that  the complainant purchased the subject mobile from the OP No.1 on 5.10.2021  as is also evident from Annexure C-1 copy of invoice  for a sale consideration of Rs.18,000/-  and after 2-3 days the subject mobile started giving problem in the calling sensor and accordingly the complainant on 11.10.2021 and again on 25.10.2021 with the same problem  submitted the subject mobile to OP No.2, the service centre of OPs No.1&3 as is also evident from job cards Annexure C-3 and C-4,  the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  there is any manufacturing defect in the subject mobile and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant  or if  there was no defect at all in the subject mobile and the complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed as is the defect of the OPs.
   2. In order to prove his case the complainant placed on record Annexure C-1 the copy of tax invoice which indicates that the complainant purchased the subject mobile from OP No.1 for a sale consideration of Rs.18000/-. Annexure C-3 is the copy of job card which indicates that the OP No.2 has mentioned the defect description found in the subject mobile  as “Sensor/sound/power/battery back low/MIC problem/calling sensor not”. Similar defect description mentioned in job Card Annexure C-4 dated 25.10.2021. Annexure C-5 is the copy of message received from OPs by the complainant which indicates that the request  made by the complainant vide service No.4335085435  was cancelled  as no defect was found by the engineer. Annexure C-6 (colly) indicates that the complainant repeatedly  requested the OP to remove the defect from the subject mobile by sending mails and even sending CD Annexure C-7 but till date the complainant is still facing the same problem and further the defence taken by the Ops that no defect was found in the subject mobile by the  engineers of the OPs stands falsified from the defect description as mentioned in Annexure C-3 and C-4, the copies of job cards. The complainant is still suffering due to manufacturing defect in the subject mobile despite of fact that he has spent an amount of Rs.18000/- and has not enjoyed the subject mobile even for 10 days without any problem, hence, the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and the Ops are liable to refund the amount to the complainant.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹18000/- to the complainant(s) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complainttill onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹3000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹3000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. After compliance of order by the OPs the complainant shall return the subject mobile to the OPs.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 1/02/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member