Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President

O R D E R

Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission, Chamba, in Consumer Complaint No.35/2023 titled Anupama Jamwal Versus M/s Harsh Communication & Anr., whereby, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed.

Brief facts of Case:

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Mobile phone from the opposite party No.1/dealer on 21.01.2023 alongwith an Adapter vide Bills/Cash Memo No.9077 and 9078 for an amount of Rs.19,000/- and Rs.1300/- respectively including CGST and SGST. The Model number of Mobile is A-14 5G, 6/128 with IMEI No.35616832/10625923 having a Warranty of Twelve Months. The Mobile Set delivered to the complainant was an unsealed box. The complainant requested the opposite party No.1/dealer to give the product in sealed cover, the opposite party No.1/dealer refused vehemently. The said mobile set developed some defects within one month of its purchase as it got heated time and again while using the same and its top glass also got cracked at many places. The phone calls were not consistent as the calls gets dropped, diverted by itself frequently. The opposite party No.2/manufacturer is also responsible for the sale of defective product to the complainant through the opposite party No.1. Alleging deficiency in the service on the part of opposite party(s), the complainant has filed the present complaint.

3. The opposite party No.1/dealer filed reply and stated that on selection of model number by the complainant, a sealed box containing a mobile phone was delivered to her, however, on the request of the complainant, the phone was opened as she intended to install the SIM card and get the phone checked. The complainant has concocted a false story that the hand set developed cracks within one month of its purchase and it got heated time and again. When the complainant visited the shop of the opposite party No.1/dealer with the complaint of heating up of mobile phone, she was requested to hand over the phone to the opposite party No.1/dealer, so that the same could be sent to Samsung repairers and only after physical verification any defects could have been removed, however, the complainant refused to hand over the said phone and straight away demanded a new phone. There is no deficiency in services on the part of opposite party No.1/dealer. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4. The opposite party No.2/manufacturer also filed separate reply and submitted that the opposite party No.1 is not an authorized dealer of Samsung India i.e. answering opposite party and the Samsung company is not responsible for any action/inaction/omission of opposite party No.1. As far as the allegations of the complainant qua the alleged defect in the mobile phone and that the top glass of the unit got cracked, are concerned, it seems that the phone is physically broken and the same is in the possession of the complainant, as such, this is the case of mishandling of phone. As per the records of the opposite party No.2/ manufacturer, the complainant has not registered any complaint to the service center of the company for any alleged defect or fault in the unit/phone. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2/manufacturer. A prayer for dismissal of complai