Punjab

Moga

CC/15/65

Nitin Jaiswal Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

Savex Computer - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sunil Jaiswal Advocate

14 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                      C.C. No. 65 of 2015

                                                                Instituted On: 12.08.2015

                                                  Decided On: 14.12.2015

 

Nitin Jaiswal Advocate aged about 27 years son of Sh.Sunil Jaiswal Advocate, resident of Patti Wali Gali no.1, Ward no.2, House no.72, Moga, Tehsil and District Moga.

Complainant 

Versus

1. Savex Computer 124, Maker Chambers III, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021, through its Managing Director.

2. Samsung Indian Electronics Limited A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.

3. Dabra Mobile Store, opposite Town Hall, Court Road, Moga, through its Prop. Pardeep Kumar Dabra, Moga.

Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint under section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

Coram:      Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

                   Smt.Vinod Bala, Member

Present:      Sh.Sunil Jaiswal, Advocate Counsel for complainant.

                    Opposite party nos.1 & 3 exparte.

                   Sh.Vishal Jain, Advocate Counsel for opposite party no.2.

 

ORDER

(S.S.Panesar, President)

                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against Savex Computer 124, Maker Chambers III, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021, through its Managing Director and others (herein-after referred to as opposite parties) - directing them to refund an amount of Rs.3000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase of charger till its realization, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and illegal and unwarranted act of the opposite parties, to pay Rs.3300/- as costs of the complaint to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deems fit and proper.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are that complainant had purchased a mobile Samsung S6edge, IMEI no.359670063127044 Gold Colour from opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.2 is manufacturer of the mobile phone, vide bill no.7270 dated 16.05.2015 for an amount of Rs.58,000/-. At the time of purchase of the mobile hand set, opposite party no.2 has created a ten thousand pay back reward vide account/ID no.9401160151661608, which was equal to Rs.2500/-. As per the scheme of the opposite party no.2, complainant had chosen to purchase the wireless charger, because he has seen promotion on TV as well as in the internet like as mail which was sent by opposite party no.2 to complainant, because it was wireless charger without connect wire. The complainant also received the reward sum of Rs.2500/- from opposite party no.2 on payment of Rs.499/-, through Credit Card of HDFC Bank. Thereafter opposite party no.1 sent the abovesaid mobile charger vide invoice no.CHNR1516103518,which CO NO CHNCO106895, through transporter fed Ex Express transportation scs order no.1351274 on 30.05.2015. Soon after the purchase of the abovesaid charger the complainant came to know that it was not a wireless charger rather, it was charger with wire. The opposite parties have wrongly sold the product with malafide intention by making false allurements. Complainant brought it to the notice of the opposite parties, but opposite party did not bother to listen his request. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, despite due service, none has put appearance on behalf of opposite party no.1, as such, opposite party no.1 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte. Upon notice, Sh.Amit Mittal, Advocate has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.3. But thereafter, neither any reply filed nor anybody appeared on behalf of opposite party no.3. As such, opposite party no.3 was ordered to be proceeded exparte.

4.                Opposite party no.2 appeared through counsel and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint; the present complaint is gross abuse of the process of law and is based on false, frivolous and baseless allegations. As per the facts pleaded by the complainant, he did purchase the wireless mobile charger, but the complainant has wrongly interpreted the specification of the said mobile charger in question. "The concept of wireless mobile charger is that there is absence of wire connectivity between mobile hand set and charger unlike conventional mobile charger and makes the product in question as wireless charger which is clearly demonstrated in all the advertisements". The wireless charger is connected to power point via power cable and mobile handset is to be placed on the top of the said wireless charger without being connected to charger with any wire that is why the said charger is called wireless charger unlike regular mobile chargers. There is no misrepresentation on the part of the opposite parties with regard to the wireless charger. Further submitted that in wireless charger, charger should be connected to power source, but no cable is to be connected to mobile handset from charger, only handset is to be kept on the charger base and hand set will get charged without any wire connection between charger and handset. In light of the facts narrated above, the present complaint merits dismissal. Complainant has not set out the legitimate ground entitling him for replacement of mobile charger or refund of the price of the charger with damage and litigation costs. The complainant neither alleged any specific irrepairable manufacturing defect or inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law. In the absence of any expert evidence, the claim cannot be allowed.  The complainant has sought refund or replacement of mobile charger, which is not permissible under the law and also under the terms of warranty. The replacement or refund is only permissible where defect developed during the period of warranty is of such a nature that the same cannot be cured or repaired. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and against the answering opposite parties to file the present complaint; There is no deficiency in service or breach of contract on the part of the answering opposite party; The complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention to extract money from the answering opposite party by dragging into unwanted litigation and the complaint of the complainant against answering opposite party is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the contents of all other paras of the complaint have been denied specifically.

5.                In his evidence, the complainant Nitin Jaiswal tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also produced on record photocopies of the documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8 and closed his evidence.

6.                To rebut the evidence of the complainant, opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.Sunil Bhargava, General Manager/Authorized Signatory of Samsung India Electronics Private Limited Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party no.2.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.

8.                On the basis of evidence on record, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that it is not denied that the complainant has purchased mobile hand set Samsung S6 edge, IMEI no.359670063127044 Gold Colour, vide bill no.7270 dated 16.05.2015for a amount of Rs.58,000/- from opposite party no.3, copy of the bill/cash memo accounts for Ex.C2. As per the scheme of opposite party no.2, the complainant had chosen to purchase the wireless charger, because he has seen some promotion on TV as well as on the internet like as mail, which was sent by opposite party no.2 to complainant, because it was wireless charger without connected wire. Soon after the purchase of the charger, complainant came to know that it was not a wireless charger rather it was a charger with wire. The opposite parties have wrongly with malafide intention to sell the product had made false allurements to dupe the customer. The complainant brought the said fact to the notice of opposite party, but the opposite party did not bother to listen to his request. The selling of charger with wire amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled to be compensated on account of mental agony and physical pain as well as litigation expenses to be assessed by this Forum.

9.                On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has vehemently contended that no unfair trade practice has been practised upon the complainant at the time of selling the wireless charger in question. It is contended that the concept of wireless mobile charger is that there is absence of wire connectivity between mobile hand set and charger unlike conventional mobile charger, which makes the product in question as wireless charger which is clearly demonstrated in all the advertisements. The wireless charger is connected to power point via power cable and mobile handset is to be placed on the top of the said wireless charger without being connected to charger with any wire that is why the said charger is called wireless charger unlike regular mobile chargers. There is no misrepresentation on the part of the opposite parties with regard to the wireless charger. In wireless charger, charger is connected to power source, but no cable is required to be connected to the mobile handset from charger. Only the handset is to be kept on the charger base and the hand set will get charged without any wire connection between charger and handset. There is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The instant complaint is nothing, but an abuse of the process of court and it is contended that complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.           

10.              We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions.

11.              There is no dispute that the complainant has purchased mobile hand set Samsung S6 edge, IMEI no.359670063127044 Gold Colour, vide bill no.7270 dated 16.05.2015, for an amount of Rs.58,000/- from opposite party no.3, copy of the bill/cash memo accounts for Ex.C2. It is also not disputed that the complainant also purchased a wireless charger in pursuance of the advertisement made by opposite parties on television, copy of bill is Ex.C3. The contention that there was misrepresentation regarding the charger being wireless is not demonstrated from the copies of the alleged advertisements Ex.C4 to Ex.C6 placed on record by the complainant himself. Rather, it appears that the complainant has interpreted the concept of wireless charger wrongly. The complainant has not adduced the report of any expert witness to bring home his concept of wireless charger to prove any misrepresentation of opposite parties. As per version of opposite parties the concept of wireless charger is that there is absence of wire connectivity between mobile hand set and charger unlike conventional mobile charger, which makes it wireless charger, which is clearly demonstrated in all the advertisements. Even otherwise also the complainant took his own time to point out the alleged deficiency in service. The complainant has filed the instant complaint on 12.08.2015, whereas the wireless charger in dispute was purchased as far back as on 30.05.2015. The complainant could very well refuse to take the delivery of the mobile charger then and there when he noticed that it was not in tune with the specifications of the alleged advertisement. But it was neither pointed out nor any objection was raised by the complainant at the appropriate time. As such, the complaint is hit by delay and latches. Copies of the advertisements placed on record Ex.C4 to Ex.C6 also go to show that there is absolutely no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

12.              The instant complaint is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the instant complaint fails and same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

                              (Vinod Bala)                 (S.S. Panesar)

                               Member                           President

 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:14.12.2015.