State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs Ajay Kumar Advocate on 13 May, 2024
First Appeal No. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 13.05.2024
51 of 2021 Versus
Sh. Ajay Kumar, Advocate and others
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
Date of Admission: 04.08.2021
Date of Final Hearing: 29.04.2024
Date of Pronouncement: 13.05.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO. 51 / 2021
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
having its Registered Office at
6th Floor, DLF Centre
Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001
(Through: Sh. Parveen Kumar, Advocate)
...... Appellant
Versus
1. Sh. Ajay Kumar, Advocate S/o late Ranjit Singh
R/o Mohalla Kadach, Post Jwalapur
Police Station Jwalapur, Tehsil & District Haridwar
2. Enrich Communication through its Proprietor
Opposite Fashion Bazar, Jwalapur Railway Station
Post & Police Station Jwalapur
Tehsil & District Haridwar (Uttarakhand)
3. Sai Customer Service through its Proprietor
89, Govindpuri Nagar, Le Grand Hotel
Haridwar
4. Bajaj Finance
Branch Office through its Branch Manager
Sant Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Arya Nagar
Haridwar Main Road, Sharda Nagar, Haridwar
Post & Police Station Jwalapur
Tehsil & District Haridwar (Uttarakhand)
(Through: None)
...... Respondents
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, President
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):
This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.01.2021 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal 1 First Appeal No. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 13.05.2024 51 of 2021 Versus Sh. Ajay Kumar, Advocate and others Commission, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 215 of 2020, styled as Sh.
Ajay Kumar, Advocate Vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and others, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that on 06.03.2020, the respondent No. 1 / complainant had purchased a mobile handset for his own use from respondent No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, out of which, an amount of Rs. 5,700/- was paid in cash and balance consideration amount of Rs. 9,300/- was financed by respondent No. 4, which was to be repaid by respondent No. 1 in six monthly installments of Rs. 1,550/- each. The complainant had given photocopy of his passbook; Aadhaar card and PAN card as well as photographs to respondent No. 2 as security of the financed amount. The respondent No. 2 had not given the bill and other documents to the complainant, as the same had to be submitted with respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 2 had given a chit, on which the purchase date of the mobile handset; warranty; name of mobile company and finance company's name were written. The respondent No. 2 had also assured the complainant in the event of any issue in the mobile handset, it would be repaired on presentation of mobile handset with the said chit. The complainant had paid the loan installments, but the respondent No. 4 had made some unauthorized deductions from the account of the complainant. The mobile handset in question along with the aforesaid chit, was submitted with respondent No. 2 for repairs and the same was sent to service centre of the appellant for repairs and finally the mobile handset was delivered back to the complainant and he was told that all the installments have been paid and now he can collect the sales invoice and warranty documents from respondent No. 4. The complainant had visited respondent No. 4 for collecting the above said documents, but the respondent No. 4 denied for the same, as the loan amount was still 2 First Appeal No. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 13.05.2024 51 of 2021 Versus Sh. Ajay Kumar, Advocate and others unpaid. Thereafter, the complainant approached the service centre of the appellant, but no service was provided in absence of invoice and warranty card. It was also alleged that the mobile handset in question stopped working and inspite of various complaints, the respondent No. 2 and service centre of the appellant have failed to provide the services in term of the warranty and respondent No. 4 had also made some unauthorized deductions from the complainant's bank account, whereas they were obliged to repair the mobile handset purchased by the complainant free of charge, upon submitting the mobile handset with its sales invoice and warranty documents. Inspite of issuing legal notice and making several requests, neither the mobile handset was repaired, nor proper services were provided in regard to the repair of the mobile handset in question. Hence, the consumer complaint was submitted by the complainant before the District Commission.
3. The appellant / opposite party No. 1 in its written statement filed before the District Commission, pleaded that the consumer complaint is wrong and baseless. There is no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question and there has not been any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The respondent No. 4 / opposite party No. 4 filed written statement before the District Commission, pleading that the consumer complaint is wrong and baseless. It was also submitted that respondent No. 4 is a finance company and has no concern with the defect in the mobile handset in question and it has wrongly been impleaded as party to the consumer complaint. There is no deficiency in service on their part and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3First Appeal No. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 13.05.2024 51 of 2021 Versus Sh. Ajay Kumar, Advocate and others
5. The respondent Nos. 2 & 3 / opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 did not submit written statement before the District Commission, therefore, vide order dated 15.12.2020, their opportunity of filing the written statement was closed by the District Commission.
6. Learned District Commission, after hearing the contesting parties and after taking into consideration the material available on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.01.2021, thereby directing the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to refund the price of the mobile handset in question amounting to Rs. 14,800/- to respondent No. 1 / complainant along with interest @6% p.a. from 24.09.2020, i.e., the date of filing of the consumer complaint till actual payment. The respondent No. 4 - finance company was directed not to deduct any amount from the complainant's account and also to credit unauthorisedly deducted amount of Rs. 1,325.03/- to the account of the complainant and issue No Dues Certificate in his favour and also to return the original documents, if any, to the complainant. It was also observed that since the complainant is an Advocate by profession and he has been unnecessarily harassed, hence the opposite parties (appellant & respondent Nos. 2 to 4) shall also pay an amount of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and litigation expenses.
7. On having been aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the present appeal has been submitted on behalf of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. as an appellant, alleging that learned District Commission has passed the impugned judgment and order against law, facts and merits of the case and has allowed the consumer complaint against the appellant merely on presumption and assumption, because it has been held in the case of Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. and another Vs. M. Moosa reported in (1994) 2 CPJ 1046 (CP) 4 First Appeal No. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 13.05.2024 51 of 2021 Versus Sh. Ajay Kumar, Advocate and others (NCDRC); S.K. Aggarwal Vs. Godrej Ge Appliances reported in II (1997) CPJ 341 and Tapan Kumar Chakraborty Vs. Expo Machinery Limited reported in II (1994) CPJ 517 that it will be very hard on the manufacturer to replace the product or refund its price, merely because some defect, not being a manufacturing defect, appears which can otherwise be rectified or the alleged defective part be replaced. It was also argued on behalf of the appellant that there is nothing on record to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission is against law. It was further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that learned District Commission has failed to consider the fact that learned District Commission ought to have referred the matter to a technical expert under Section 38(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to ascertain the veracity of the complaints made by the complainant. Thus, learned District Commission has grossly erred in passing the impugned judgment and order, by accepting the version of the complainant.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondents inspite of sufficient service. Vide order dated 16.02.2024, it was directed that the appeal shall proceed ex-parte against respondent Nos. 1 to 3. As per order dated 16.02.2024, the respondent No. 4 has paid an amount of Rs. 16,325/- to respondent No. 1 / complainant through demand draft No. 855960 before the District Commission, which was received by him. Paper No. 71 on record is the copy of acknowledgement receipt. Thus, it is evident that the complainant has received an amount of Rs. 16,325/- from respondent No. 1 on 10.11.2022. Vide order dated 16.02.2024, it was also observed that as the respondent No. 4 has paid its part of decretal amount, hence the appeal has become infructuous as against respondent No. 4.
5First Appeal No. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 13.05.2024 51 of 2021 Versus Sh. Ajay Kumar, Advocate and others
9. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that in the impugned judgment and order, learned District Commission has wrongly observed that the opposite parties to the consumer complaint have not made any dispute regarding the purchase of mobile handset and its malfunctioning during the warranty period, hence the mobile handset has an inherent manufacturing defect. Learned counsel also submitted that the impugned judgment and order does not show that learned District Commission ever complied with the provision of Section 38(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to ascertain the veracity of the complaints made by the complainant regarding the manufacturing defect and has not sent the mobile handset to the appropriate laboratory for analysis as to whether the mobile handset suffers from inherent manufacturing defect or not.
10. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant has ever made any effort before the District Commission to comply with the provision of Section 38(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Apart from it, there is no expert evidence filed on behalf of the complainant that the mobile handset in question has any inherent manufacturing defect, incapable of being cured / rectified. Thus, in the absence of any expert evidence regarding manufacturing defect in the mobile handset, the impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission appears to be perverse and contrary to the facts of the case as well as evidence available on record.
11. In view of the above discussion, it is proved that learned District Commission has wrongly allowed the consumer complaint, ignoring the aforesaid mandatory provisions of law. Therefore, we are of the considered view that learned District Commission has allowed the consumer complaint without appreciating the facts, evidence and merits of the case and has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law.
6First Appeal No. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 13.05.2024 51 of 2021 Versus Sh. Ajay Kumar, Advocate and others The impugned judgment and order is perverse and suffers from illegality & infirmity and is liable to be set aside. Thus, we are inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by the District Commission. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be allowed. It is worth mentioning here that, as is stated above, the respondent No. 4 has already paid its part of decretal amount, hence it would not be in the fitness of things to direct the complainant to refund the amount received by him from respondent No. 4.
12. Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 19.01.2021 passed by the District Commission insofar as against the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 is set aside and consumer complaint No. 215 of 2020 is hereby dismissed against the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 & 3. No order as to costs of the appeal. The amount deposited by the appellant with this Commission, be released in its favour.
13. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. A copy of this Order be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information.
14. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) President (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 13.05.2024 7