Delhi

East Delhi

CC/114/2020

DINESH JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAI MOBILE HUB - Opp.Party(s)

04 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 114/2020

 

	Dinesh Jain R/o:-IX/90, Shyam Block, Kailash Nagar, Delhi-110031.	….Complainant
Versus
1.         2.         3.	M/s Sai Mobile Hub Service to be effected Through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager, Express Building, 9-10, 3rd Floor, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002.   DMI Finance Pvt. Ltd. Service to be effected Through its Director/Secretary/Manager, Express Building, 9-10, 3rd Floor, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002.   M/s Samsung India electronics Pvt. Ltd. Service to be effected Through its Director/Secretary/Manager, Its Registered Office at 6th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.	……OP1         ……OP2           ……OP3

 

Date of Institution: 01.09.2020

Judgment Reserved on: 26.04.2023

Judgment Passed on: 04.05.2023

               

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

Ordered By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

The complainant filed the present complaint against OPs alleging deficiency in service and defect in product & praying for a refund of the price paid along with compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation costs.

OP1 is the showroom, OP2 is the financer from whom the complainant has got his phone financed, and OP3 is the manufacturer of the phone.

1. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased a mobile phone manufactured by OP3 from OP1 on 10.08.2019, financed from OP2, vide invoice number 1106, for a total consideration of Rs.18,490/-.  This is the grievance of the complainant that ever since he purchased this mobile, he has not been receiving proper services and all his efforts to get the phone properly functional, failed despite his approaching the showroom and the customer support system. He lodged his first complaint vide ticket number 116468 on 04.03.2020 with OP1 and OP2 but no response was given by them. The complainant submits that he came to know from the service provider that the outgoing facility of his mobile had been deactivated by the OPs. The complainant further submits that he has never defaulted in the payment of any installment to OP2 nor had misused the mobile. Because of such deactivation of the outgoing service/facility, the complainant has suffered a substantial loss for which all the OPs are jointly and severally responsible. The complainant submits that he had been subjected to great mental torture and agony because of the lapse, negligence and deficiency of services on the part of the OPs and prays for the replacement of the mobile or refund of the amount paid with the interest of 18% p.a. from the date of purchase, i.e. 10.08.2019.
2. OP1 and OP2 chose not to appear and as such were proceeded, ex-parte vide order dated 05.05.2022. OP3 has filed its WS denying the allegations of the complainant and submits that the said product has been purchased by the complainant in good and sealed condition after completely satisfying himself with the product. OP3 submits that the product in question carries a warranty for a period of one year whereby the replacement of the product or refund is expressly excluded and only repair or replacement of any part thereof is covered. Further, in case of damage, the product can only be repaired on a chargeable basis from the customer. The OP3 further submits that the complainant neither has attached any documentary evidence to prove his averments in the complaint nor approached them with a complaint of any type with the said product. OP3 submits that it is not aware of any communication between the complainant and OP1 and OP2, and the OP3 is still ready to repair it free of cost, if the complainant approached it. It is prayed by OP3 that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost being misconceived, vague and baseless and filed with Mala fide intent. The allegation of the deficiency in service is without any proper documentary evidence.
3. Complainant & OP3 have filed their respective evidence and related documents. In support of his case, the complainant has filed an invoice dated 10.08.2019, Ex.CW1/1 and complaint dated 04.03.2020, Ex. CW1/2. OP3 has filed a copy of the terms and conditions of the warranty policy, Ex. OPW1/A.
4. Before appreciating the evidence of the parties, it is necessary to bring on record that, in view of the contention of OP3 that it has no knowledge w.r.t. any complaint made by the complainant with OP1 & OP2, the clarification was sought from OP3 that in view of the fact mentioned by OP3 in written statement that OP3 is still ready to repair the same, free of cost, the Commission enquired from the Ld. Counsel for OP3 as to where the complainant may contact OP3 for redressal of the complaint now, but Ld. Counsel for OP3, was not able to inform any fact to the Commission, rather it did not respond to the call of the Commission as to how & where the complainant would visit so that his complaint be redressed if it exists at all. Further, even if the OP3 was not aware of such a complaint earlier, then from the date when it received the complaint from the Commission, it had the knowledge of the complaint atleast from the date of filing the complaint & he never responded positively to the complaint of the complainant. This aspect, complied with the fact that when Ld. Counsel for OP3 was enquired by the Commission & no proper reply came, the Commission is of the opinion that such defence was only a moonshine & therefore the matter is being disposed off on merit.

 

5. The Commission has gone through the documents available on record and has heard the contentions of the rival parties. The purchase of the product is not in dispute.
6. Having gone through the entire material on record, it is observed that though the complainant has alleged a manufacturing defect yet has not led any evidence to prove his allegation relating to manufacturing defect in the phone, therefore this allegation of the complainant is liable to be rejected & the value of the product cannot be ordered.
7. However, Considering the fact that the mobile is the new mobile purchased for consideration & is within the warranty period and the complainant has all the rights to get all the benefits of the product he had purchased,this Commission is of the view that the defect as alleged by the complainant kept him deprived from using his new phone. Since OP3 was not inclined to rectify the same & OP1 and OP2 chose not to appear, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of OP2 it being the financer only, however, OP1 & OP3 are held liable for deficiency in service considering the fact that despite the product  being under the period of warranty, the complainant has not been provided with the proper service, nor his grievances were redressed & therefore, OP1 & OP3 are held liable for deficiency in providing service to the complainant.
8. It is matter of record that the complainant used the mobile phone for 7 months. Therefore complete value of the product would not be justified & accordingly the Commission hereby direct to OP1 & OP3 would jointly & severally pay 60% of the product value to the complainant i.e. Rs. 11094/- and to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards mental agony and harassment, which shall include litigation cost & complainant would return the handset to the OP, simultaneously.
9. This order be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receiving the order failing which the entire amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order till its compliance.
10. A copy of the order is given to the parties as per CPA rules 2019.
11. The file be consigned to the record room after uploading the order on the website.
12. The order contains 06 pages for each beer with our signature.

Pronounced on 04.05.2023.