Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Sona Gupta —Petitioner
versus
M/s. Parag Mobile —Respondent
Revision Petition No.992 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 07/04/2017 in Appeal No. 2415/2013 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
Decided on 12.3.2020
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58 – Mobile Phone – Call recording facility not found – Claim for – Complainant purchased a Mobile Phone with alleged call recording facility by opposite party – Submission of complainant that a call cannot be recorded by phone in question – Pamphlet of phone mentions under the heading of “Call Recording” that it records conservations, which can be used for evidence – Nothing brought on record by complainant to prove his case, and similarly even the opposite party failed to disprove the allegation of complaint above non-recording of date, time and name of caller while recording call – Phone in question directed to be returned to opposite parties and to pay cost of phone – Manufacturer also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000 – Further direction issued. (Para 9)
Result: Petition disposed of.
ORDER
Prem Narain, Presiding Member—These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner Sona Gupta against the order dated 07.04.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.2697 of 2013 & 2415 of 2013.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant purchased a mobile Samsung Star Nxt for about Rs.7,000/- from the Parag Mobile (dealer) opposite party No.1 in the original complaint case. It is the case of the petitioner/complainant that this phone was advance phone where call can be recorded. The cover of the packing of this phone also mentions the “Leading the Touch Revolution Call Record Yahoo Messenger”. However, the petitioner/complainant observed that the phone had only a voice recorder and not the call recorder, therefore, the complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mainpuri, (in short ‘the District Forum’) bearing CC No.62 of 2013. The opposite parties resisted the complaint by filing the written statement. The District Forum decided the complaint vide its order dated 30.09.2013 as under:-
“18. The complaint of the complainant against the O.Ps. for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lacs) from the O.Ps. is allowed. O.P.No.1 shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) to the complainant and O.Ps. No.2 and 3 shall pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs). All the three O.Ps. shall also pay Rs.5,000/- as costs. On this amount, 7 percent per annum interest shall also be payable from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 22.5.2013 till actual payment.
19. Accordingly, the O.Ps. are ordered to pay the ordered amount to the complainant within one month from the judgment.”
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party No.1 preferred appeal No.2415 of 2013 before the State Commission. Similarly, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. preferred appeal No.2697 of 2013 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 07.04.2017 decided both the appeals as under:-
“Both the appeals No.2697 of 2013 and Appeal No.2415 of 2013 are hereby allowed. The judgment and order dated 30.09.2013, passed in complaint No.62 of 2013 is set aside and the complaint is hereby dismissed.
Copy of this judgment be placed on Appeal No.2415 of 2013.
Both the parties shall bear the costs of appeal.”
4. Hence the present revision petitions.
5. Heard AR of the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents in both the cases.
6. AR of the petitioner stated that there is no call recording facility in the mobile phone whereas the box in which the mobile phone was packed clearly mentions “Leading the Touch Revolution Call Record Yahoo Messenger”. AR of the petitioner stated that call recording means that it should record not only the voice incoming or out going in a call but should also record the date, time and the name of the person, who is talking to the mobile holder. AR of the petitioner stated that this mobile only has the voice recorder and cannot record the call incoming or outgoing. It was ordered by this Commission that the Engineer of the Samsung India Ltd. should be present to demonstrate what is meant by call recording in this phone. The Engineer demonstrated that the call can be recorded. However, the AR of the petitioner then stated that even if the call is recorded it does not give the time and date or the name of the person and therefore, the same cannot be used for any evidence. During the demonstration, AR of the petitioner stated that the call can be recorded, but the date, time and name is not being recorded, that is why the mobile does not have actual facility of call recording. No further demonstration in this regard was made by the opposite party Company.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party stated that the State Commission has considered the issue involved in the present case and has reached to the conclusion that there
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
