Delhi

East Delhi

CC/5/2018

VAZEEM AHMED - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG - Opp.Party(s)

12 Jan 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. 5/2018

 

	VAZEEM AHMAD S/O SH. BASHIR KHAN R/O H. NO. -57, SEC-12, PRATAP VIHAR, GHAZIABAD, U.P. - 201009	….Complainant
Versus
1	MAA VAISHNAVI SERVICES PVT. LTD. 1, NEW RAJDHANI ENCLAVE, PREET VIHAR DELHI – 110092	……OP
2	SAMSUNG INDIA PVT. LTD. C-1 POCKET, 1ST FLOOR, JANAKPURI, DELHI - 110058

 

 

Date of Institution: 08.01.2018

Judgment Reserved on: 10.01.2023

Judgment Passed on: 12.01.2023

               

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

1. By this Order the Commission would dispose off the complaint filed by the complainant with respect to deficiency in service in repairing the Mobile. 
2. Brief facts as stated by the Complainant are that he purchased a Samsung Phone J-700 from M/s  Manpreet Telecom, Vikas Marg, Shakar Pur, Delhi on 13.08.2016 for Rs.13500/- but the phone was defective from the day one and ultimately he lodged a complaint on 14.07.2017, where after OP1 assured that the phone would be repaired within 7 days but no reply was given despite visiting the office of OP1 and despite writing various emails to OP1 and ultimately he sent a legal notice to the OP1 but the complaint was not redressed and as such he has filed the present complaint before this Commission with the prayer that OP be directed to pay Rs.13500/- to the complainant with compensation of Rs.50000/- for the harassment, mental torture, physical and mental pain and litigation charges of Rs.10000/-.     
3. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to OPs where after OP2 filed its reply but OP1 was never served and ultimately vide Order dated 20.07.2022 the Counsel for the Complainant stated to the Commission that he does not want to prosecute his complaint against OP1.  Further, OP2 in its written statement has inter alia stated that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has concealed the material facts from the Commission.    
4. With respect to deficiency in service all facts are denied and it is stated that as and when the complainant visited, the Service Centre of OP2 his complaint was redressed although the first complaint was made after 11 months of the purchase and not only this, when the complainant visited the office of OP1 he was informed that the centre button of the phone was missing which amounts to physical damage and warranty does not cover the physical damage and the same would be chargeable but the complainant apparently denied repair of the phone and subsequently the said service centre/ call centre was closed. 
5. It is specifically submitted that the warranty does not cover liquid damage, physical damage tempering, mishandling of the product and if the serial number is missing.  It is therefore submitted that the answering respondent is still ready to repair the product on the chargeable basis.  It is also submitted that since no manufacturing defect is found in the handset and therefore complaint against OP2 is not maintainable and therefore the complaint against OP2 is liable be dismissed. 
6. Rejoinder was not filed by the Complainant. 
7. Complainant has filed his evidence and OP has filed their evidence. 
8. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. 
9. It is not disputed that first complaint was made by the Complainant after 11 months of date of purchase the phone and there is no Rejoinder filed by the Complainant to the written statement of OP2 where it submitted that phone is not with the authorized service centre and is rather with the complainant and OP2 is still ready to repair the same.  Further, the main allegation is against OP1 who allegedly failed in rendering the services but ultimately OP1 has been deleted by the Complainant.  It is also matter of record that the phone was not purchased from OP2 rather it was purchased from M/s Manpreet Telecom who has not been made a party.  It was given to OP1 being authorized Service Centre of OP2 for repairing and subsequently OP1 has been deleted from the array of parties and thirdly since no manufacturing defect has been alleged no relief can be granted against OP2.   The fact remains that the OP1 against whom there are allegation of deficiency in service is no more a party in the case and as such no relief can be granted upon OP1 and OP2 who is manufacturer and since no manufacture defect has been alleged. 

No relief can be granted against OP2. 

In view of the reasons stated supra, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.        

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.  

Announced on 12.01.2022

 

(Rashmi Bansal) Member

(Ravi Kumar) Member

(S.S. Malhotra) President