1. 
   
   1. 
      
      1. 
         
         1. 
            
            1. 
               
               1. 
                  
                  1. 
                     
                     1. 
                        
                        1. 
                           
                           1. CC. No. 345 of 24-12-2008
                              Decided on : 30-04-2009

Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh, R/o Village Machhana, Tehsil & District Bathinda. ... Complainant
Versus

1. M/s. Sushil Telecom, Kanwal Cinema Road, Bathinda through its Prop./Partner

1. M/s. ADYE Brothers, Authorised Service Centre of SAMSUNG India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Bibiwala Road, Krishna Market, Near Krishan Continental Hotel, Bathinda, through its Partner/Proprietor/Manager.

1. SAMSUNG India electronics Pvt. Ltd., 7th & 8th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61 Nehru Palace, New Delhi, through its Managing Director/Chairman.
   
   ... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

1. Act, 1986.

QUORUM
Sh. Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Present : Sh. Raman Khattar, Advocate, counsel for the complainant
Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 exparte
Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No 3

O R D E R


DR. PRITAM SINGH DHANOA, PRESIDENT

1. Sh. Rajesh Kumar son of Sh. Sukhbir Singh, a resident of village Machhana, District Bathinda, has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act') against M/s Sushil Telecom, Bathinda, SAMSUNG India Electronics Pvt. Ltd and its authorised service centre i.e. M/s. ADYE Brothers, for replacement of his mobile phone set with new set of the same description and in the alternative for refund of price thereof alongwith interest at the rate of 18 percent and for payment of Rs. 50,000/- on account of damages and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of loss of income and cost of petrol and a sum of Rs. 5500/- on account of costs for filing of instant complaint.

1. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased mobile phone set model D780, vide purchase Invoice No. 247 dated 14-08-2008 for a consideration of Rs. 9200/- from opposite party No. 1, manufactured by opposite party No. 3. At the time of purchase, opposite party No. 1 which is dealer of opposite party No. 3, has given assurance that mobile set is of best quality and would function properly and in case of any defect, it will be removed at once but even if defect persists, mobile set would be replaced with a new set of same description. He also gave warranty for a period of one year. Complainant on the assurance of opposite party No. 2, had purchased the mobile set but it functioned properly only for a period of two months after the date of its purchase. After his mobile set stopped functioning, the complainant approached opposite party No. 1, who prepared Job sheet/work order No. 08J31W03 dated 31-10-2008, and reported thereon that mobile set suffers from hanging problem. He retained the mobile set for a period of 20 to 25 days for the purpose of repairs, but defects could not be removed. On being approached by the complainant on 22/23-11-2008, opposite party No. 2 which is service centre of manufacturing company, informed that his set has not been repaired so far, as such he may visit after a week. On 29-11-2008, the complainant received SMS from opposite party No. 2 through mobile phone No. 919845086065 on his mobile No. 98766-52278 that mobile set is ready for delivery after repairs and he shall contact him forthwith for its delivery. As the complainant approached opposite party No. 2, he conveyed him that he has not received his mobile set from manufacturing company after repairs and asked him to visit him after a week. Thereafter he received telephonic call from Mr. Rahul Kumar, an officer of opposite party No. 3, posted at Ludhiana, who asked him to visit the office of opposite party No. 2 again alongwith charger, warranty and air-phone etc., of his mobile hand set. On the basis of said information, the complainant delivered these articles in the office of opposite party No. 2, who retained with them on the pretext that they are required by opposite party No. 3, for removal of defects and asked him to collect them and the mobile set after a week. As the complainant again approached him after expiry of a week, the opposite parties refused to intervene the matter and to remove the defects or to replace of mobile set with a new mobile set of same description because of which complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment and has spent lot of amount for covering distance of 20/25 Kms radius to the office of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. He has also suffered loss in his income without any fault on his part. Hence this complaint.

1. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Vide order dated 24-03-2009, opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte although he earlier appeared through Sh. Naveen Goyal, Advocate, whereas opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13-02-2009, although Sh. Hardinesh Aggarwal had appeared on his behalf as his authorised representative, earlier. The defence of opposite party No. 1 was struck off vide order dated 31-03-2009.

1. In exparte evidence, counsel for the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. C-1, copies of Invoice and work order Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3 and closed his evidence, but no evidence has been led by opposite party No. 3, before his defence was struck off.

1. We have heard, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced on record by him, carefully,with his kind assistance.

1. Learned counsel for the complainant Sh. Raman Khattar, Advocate, has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint and has submitted that the case of the complainant regarding manfacturing defect in his mobile set and non-return thereof by opposite party No. 2, is fully proved, as such, mobile set of the complainant be got replaced from the opposite parties or they be directed to refund the amount paid by him alongwith interest, compensation and costs as demanded in the complaint.

1. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate, has submitted that complainant has not examined any expert to prove the defect in the mobile set purchased by him and withheld the warranty card, as such, mobile set cannot be ordered to be replaced and no case is made out for refund of the price, and if this Forum accepts his plea, as per plea of the complainant, his mobile set may be repaired. Learned counsel argued that initial onus was upon the complainant to prove defect in his mobile set, if any, and that the same has occurred within the warranty period but he has failed to discharge the same by producing positive evidence, as such, his complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon 2006(2) CLT 150 (SC) Maruti Udyog Ltd., Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and another, wherein complainant purchased a car from the opposite parties and alleged manufacturing defect but the warranty card clearly referred the replacement of defective parts and not of the car. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex court that contract of sale as to warranty is silent, as such, High Court was not justified in directing the opposite parties to replace the said vehicle. Learned counsel has further relied upon 2000(1) CLT (SC) Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. M/s. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and another, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in case deficiency in service is alleged, then burden of proof is upon the person, who alleges it. Learned counsel urged that in view of the facts of the case and law laid down in the authorities referred above, complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs.

1. We do not find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for opposite party No. 3, because the contents of affidavit tendered by the complainant in evidence regarding mobile set purchased by him, defect therein, its removal and non-return thereof have gone un-controverted because opposite parties No. 1 & 2, have been proceeded against exparte and defence of opposite party No. 3, has been struck off. Moreover, the complainant has also produced on record Job card Ex. C-3, wherein it has been mentioned by opposite party No. 2 that he had reported the problem of hanging in his mobile set. There is nothing on record to suggest that the said set after removal of defect has been returned to the complainant. Since the evidence adduced by the complainant has gone un-rebutted, therefore, adverse inference cannot be drawn against the complainant due to non-production of warranty card. In the absence of any evidence from the opposite parties, we are unable to hold that complainant has failed to discharge initial onus upon him regarding above said fact.

1. We have carefully gone through, the ratio judgements, relied upon by the learned counsel for opposite party 3, but have come to the conclusion, that their facts and circumstances , were quite distinguishable from those of the case in hand. The complainant has also produced on record purchase Invoice Ex. C-2, showing that he paid a sum of Rs. 9200/- for his mobile set. The factum of sale of mobile set by opposite party No. 1, to the complainant is not disputed even by opposite party No. 3, alongwith the fact that opposite party No. 2, with whom mobile set was deposited, after it stopped functioning properly, is authorised service centre.

1. Since the defect in the mobile set purchased by the complainant has not been removed by opposite party No. 2 and he has failed to return the same to the complainant, therefore in our opinion, complainant is entitled to recover the cost of mobile set and the liability of all the opposite parties would be joint and several. Since the complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment and has incurred avoidable expenses for filing of instant complaint, therefore interest of justice demands that he be adequately compensated for the same.

1. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs. 9200/- i.e. cost of mobile set to the complainant and to pay him a sum of Rs. 1,000/- on account of compensation and equal amount on account of costs for filing of instant complaint, within the period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

C.C. No. 297 of 17.10.2008
Decided on : 30.4.2009

1. Gurcharan Singh S/o Sh. Gurdial Singh S/o Sh. Pala Singh, R/o Village Jodhpur Romana, P.O. Naruana, Tehsil & District Bathinda.
   .... Complainant
   Versus
   
   
   1. M/s. Bansal Mobile Care, Shop No. 6, S.S.D Sabha Market, The Mall, Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner.
   2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Authorised Service Centre, Bathinda through its Partner/Proprietor/Manager, Krishna Market, Backside of Hotel Krishna Continental, Bathinda.
   3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 3rd Floor, IFCI, Tower 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
   ..... Opposite parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986


QUORUM:
Sh. Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President
Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member


For the complainant : Sh. Pardeep Sharma, Advocate
For the opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg Advocate, counsel for
opposite parties No. 2 & 3
Opposite party No. 1 already exparte


O R D E R.


PRITAM SINGH DHANOA, PRESIDENT:-

1. Sh. Gurcharan Singh S/o Sh. Gurdial Singh, resident of Village Jodhpur Romana, P.O. Naruana, Tehsil & District Bathinda has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short called the 'Act') against M/s. Bansal Mobile Care, Bathinda and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and its authorised service centre, Bathinda for giving them direction to replace mobile set and in the alternative to refund cost thereof paid by him alongwith interest @ 18% P.A with further direction to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension and agony and a sum of Rs. 5,500/- as costs of litigation. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant may be described as under :-
   That he purchased one mobile set (J-600) bearing IMEI No. 359777/01/484082/1 for a sum of Rs. 5,100/- vide bill No. 2207 dated 25.7.2008 from opposite party No.1. The said mobile set has been manufactured by opposite party No. 3 and opposite party No. 2 is its authorized service centre. At the time of sale of the mobile set, opposite party No. 1 assured the complainant that the set is of best quality and free from any defect and gives good performance. He further gave assurance that in case of any defect, the same shall be removed within no time and in case not rectified, then to replace the same. On his assurances, complainant was prompted to purchase the mobile set, but a fortnight after purchase thereof, it stopped functioning properly. He approached opposite party No. 2 on the advice of opposite party No.1. They also prepared the job card to the effect that screen of the mobile set remains off its screen is not displayed. The opposite party No. 2 retained the mobile set with him for a period of 2/3 days, before it was returned to the complainant after effecting repairs.
2. After a couple of days, mobile set again became defective. The complainant again approached opposite party No.2 who orally informed him that there is manufacturing defect in the set which is not curable. On being requested by the complainant to replace the set, opposite party No. 2 refused to accede to his request although it was within warranty period. One Miss Pooja present in his premises told the complainant that duty to replace the set is either of opposite party No. 1 or opposite party No.3 and not of opposite party No.2. Thereafter, complainant approached opposite party No. 1 with a request to replace his mobile set, but he did not take any action. He has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to the conduct of the opposite parties and has to incur avoidable expenditure for filing the instant complaint. Hence, the complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite party No.2, but no-one appeared on his behalf, as such, opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.11.2008, whereas Sh.Vinod Garg Advocate appeared on behalf of the remaining opposite parties and filed written version resisting the complaint by taking preliminary objections that complaint is misconceived and not maintainable as complainant is not a consumer within the ambit of definition of consumer given in the Act; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint because as per conditions printed on card of warranty, court at New Delhi has exclusive jurisdiction; that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has concealed material facts and there is no defect in the mobile set; that complainant has inflated his claim and has no locus-standi to file and pursue the same. On merits, it is submitted that if the defect has occurred in the mobile set of the complainant within warranty period, then only repairs can be effected but order for replacement cannot be made by this Forum. The factum of issuance of job sheet and warranty card is not denied and it is submitted that said documents were filled as per information given by the complainant, but on examination of the set, it was found to be perfectly in good condition. It is submitted that after re-installation of software, the set was returned to the complainant. It is denied that he has been subjected to mental and physical harassment. Rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. On being called upon by this Forum to do so, learned counsel for the complainant furnished his affidavit Ex.C.1 and copies of documents Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.3 before he closed his evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties also furnished affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Swami Padmanabhan, Occupation Branch Manager and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and opposite parties No. 2 & 3 and gone through the oral and documentary evidence adduced on record by them with their kind assistance.
6. To begin with, learned counsel for the complainant Sh. Pardeep Sharma Advocate has submitted that the complainant has been successful in proving his plea that mobile set purchased by him from opposite party No. 1 started giving trouble within a period of fortnight after its purchase and defect could not be removed by opposite party No.2 who was approached by him at the instance of opposite party No.1. Learned counsel has further submitted that defect in the mobile set of the complainant has occurred during the warranty period, as such, the same be either replaced or opposite parties be directed to pay the cost thereof alongwith interest, compensation and costs as demanded in the complaint.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 & 3 Sh. Vinod Garg Advocate has has submitted that initial onus to prove that there was some defect in the mobile set purchased by the complainant was upon him, but he has not examined any expert to prove the said defect and has withheld the warranty card. Learned counsel has also argued that as per own case of the complainant, defect has occurred in the mobile set purchased from opposite party No. 1 and manufactured by opposite party No. 3 within warranty period. As such, even if this Forum comes to the conclusion that complainant is entitled to any relief, then direction may be given for repair of the mobile set and not for its replacement as no guarantee for proper functioning thereof has been given to the complainant by either of the opposite parties. Learned counsel has urged that complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed with costs. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon 2001(1)CLT-33(SC) Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. M/s. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and another wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that where deficiency in service is alleged, then burden of proving the same rests with the person who alleges the same. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on 2006(2)CLT-150(SC) Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and another wherein complainant had alleged manufacturing defect in the car purchased by him and warranty card clearly refers to the replacement of defective parts and not the car. It was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that since the contract is not silent regarding sale as to warranty, as such, High Court was not justified in directing the opposite parties to replace the vehicle purchased by the complainant.
8. We do not find merit in the argument of learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties because his plea regarding purchase of mobile set and defect therein is proved by the duly sworn affidavit Ex.C.1 of the complainant, copy of retail invoice Ex.C.2 and work order Ex.C.3. As per the copy of invoice, complainant purchased the mobile set in question for a consideration of Rs.5,100/-. The copy of work order Ex.C.3 bears the signatures of representative of opposite parties. It is specifically mentioned therein that display of screen of mobile set purchased by the complainant has broken. Since the document bear the signatures of official of opposite parties No. 1 & 2, therefore, complainant cannot be non-suited even if he has not examined any expert to prove the defect in his mobile set. The contents of affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Swami Padmanabhan, Occupation Branch Manager of the contesting opposite parties are not corroborated by any evidence. He has not claimed that he personally dealt with the complaint lodged by the complainant. No evidence has been produced by the opposite parties to establish that defect in the mobile set purchased by the complainant could not be removed due to any lapse on his part. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that non-production of warranty card is of no consequence. The evidence against opposite party no. 1 has gone uncontroverted to the effect that defect in mobile set sold by him bears manufacturing defect as he has been proceeded against exparte. There is no dispute that he is dealer of opposite party No.3. As such, opposite party No. 3 cannot escape the liability of supplying of defective mobile set to the complainant. We have carefully gone through the ratio of judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties, but have come to the conclusion that facts and circumstances thereof, were quite distinguishable from those of the case in hand.
9. It is not disputed by opposite party No. 3 that opposite party No.2 is its service centre. In the given circumstances, we are of the opinion that repair or replacement of the mobile set purchased by the complainant are not adequate reliefs and he deserves for grant of relief for refund of the amount paid by him for purchase thereof. Since he has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to supply of defective mobile set by the opposite parties, therefore, he is also entitled to adequate amount on account of compensation and costs for filing of instant complaint.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,100/- as cost of mobile set and to pay him a sum of Rs. 1,000/- on account of compensation and another sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs for filing of instant complaint within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant shall deposit the mobile set in his possession with opposite party No.1 within a period 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The liability of the opposite parties to make refund of the amount and for payment of compensation and costs to the complainant would be joint and several.

Shri Iashwer Singh Rawat S/O late Shri Mool Singh Rawat,

R/O Village Sawra, P.O. Hat Koti, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P.





… Complainant.

Versus





1. The Samsung India Pvt. Ltd.,

SCO No.5, Sector 41-D, Chandgiarh, 5035669.



2. M/S Puran Chand Satya Paul Khanna,

through its Proprietor, 4-Regent House, Near Lift,

The Mall, Shimla, H.P.



…Opposite Parties



O R D E R:




This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant alleges that on, 31.05.2007, he purchased one Samsung Handy Cam Model No.VP-DC-1731, for a sale consideration of Rs.23,990/- from the OP No.2, vide Invoice No.1467, dated, 31.05.2007. He further alleged tht in the month of March, 2007, some defect developed in the Handy Cam, as a result of which, it stopped working, hence, he brought the said defect to the notice of the OP No.2, who advised the complainant to get it repaired from authorized service centre of OP No.1 at Chandigarh. Thereafter, the complainant handed over the aforesaid product to the authorized workshop of the OP No.1 at Chandigarh for its repair, who failed to return the same after repair. Hence, it is averred that, there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. Notice of this complaint was issued to the OPs, for 02.04.2009, on which date, none appeared on behalf of the OPs, despite service, hence, the complaint was ordered to be heard exparte, vide zimni order dated, 02.04.2009.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

4. The complainant in support of his claim, as asserted in the complaint, has placed reliance on documents Annexure A-1 which is copy of bill dated 31.05.2007, issued by the OP No.2, in favour of the complainant regarding sale of one Samsung Handy Cam. The complainant has also appended copy of international warranty which bears Annexure C-2, whereas Annexure C-3 is copy of job card issued OP No.1, in favour of the complainant, wherein the nature of complaint is detailed as’ switch not working’, as also, the product is within warranty period. Hence, the assertion, as asserted in the complaint, by the complainant that the OP No.1, failed to return the product after repairs to him, is truthful, as the OP No.1 despite valid service, thought it proper not to contest the complaint.

5. The effect of the aforesaid discussion is that the product so sold by the OP No.2, to the complainant developed defect during the warranty period, hence, the product as per the advice of the OP No.2, was handed over to the OP No.1, who is authorized service centre of Samsung for repairs. However, the OP No.1, failed to carry return the aforesaid product to the complainant after repairs, thereby indulging in an unfair trade practice.

6. Consequently, we allow the complaint and direct the OP No.1 as under:-

i) That the OP No.1 shall carry out the repair of the aforesaid product and shall deliver the same to the complainant in working and functional condition;



ii) That the OP No.1, shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation to the complainant, for causing him unnecessary harassment, in not delivering the aforesaid product to him in time, after repairs.



iii) That the litigation cost is quantified at Rs.1000/- payable by the OP No.1 to the complainant;



iv) That the OP No.1 shall comply with this order, within a period of one month, after the date of receipt of copy of this order;



v) That the complaint qua OP No.2 is dismissed, being not maintainable.



7. The learned counsel for the complainant undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules, and since the OPs have not contested the complaint, as such office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the OPs through UPC for compliance forthwith. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Tmt.Kamala Raman,

H-807, Phase IV, Ganapathy Maa Naga,

Ganapathy, Coimbatore-6. --- Complainant

Vs.



1. M/s. Sri Devi Enterprises,

Samsung Exclusive Showroom,

R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-2

2. M/s. Asia Electronics,

Samsung Authorised Service Centre,

Coimbatore – 2

3. M/s.Samsung India Electronic Pvt.Ltd.

61, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110 019. -- Opposite Parties



This case coming on for final hearing before us today in the presence of Mr. V.Jagadeesan, Advocate for complainant and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:



ORDER



Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the whole amount of Rs.29,000 with 18% interest p.a., to pay Rs.25,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards the defective product supplied, to pay hiring charges of Rs.15,000 and to pay cost of Rs.5000.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:



1. The complainant had used their pensionery earnins and purchased refrigerator of make Samsung, Model RT 45, Capacity 400 ltrs, type – Frost free along with stabilizer We-care 1 KVA on 7th May 2009 vide invoice No.461 dt.7th May 2009 for a total cost of Rs.29,000 from the 1st opposite party. The product was installed by the representative of 1st opposite party on 7th May 2009. The 1st opposite party failed to give the cash receipt for Rs.29,000, warranty card and user manual of the product purchased and on being asked the 1st opposite party mentioned that it will be delivered on a later date. Inspite of repeated reminder no response has been received from the time of delivery till the date of filing this complaint, thus the 1st opposite party is resorting to unfair trade practice.

2. On 9th May 2009, the 2nd opposite party had sent their representative for demonstration. During demonstration certain defects which were noticed by the complainant. The defects is as follows:-

a. Excess accumulation of water in vegetable tray

b. Excess moisture and water droplets in all air tight containers

c. Water accumulation in the tray behind the frost free refrigerator

d. All vegetables and fruits getting spoiled due to excess chillness in the refrigerator even in the minimum cold set up

e. Frost formation in the inner walls of the freezer of the frost free refrigerator

f. Seepage of water from the vegetable tray and dirt/mud ingress in the inside of the side wall cover of vegetable tray

g. Water condensation in the chiller which is further dropping down inside the refrigerator

h. No warranty card given to complainant by the 1st opposite party along with the product

i. No user manual given to the complainant by 1st opposite party along with the product.

The representative of 2nd opposite party failed to clarify the reason therein for the above mentioned defects as brought out by the complainant. The representative of the 2nd opposite party was technically incompetent and had no knowledge of the operation of the company product thereby displaying lack of service by the opposite parties 1 to 3. Thus the complainant had lost faith in the manufacturer and its product.

3. Finding no response from the opposite parties, the complainant had further telephonically complained to the opposite parties 1 and 2 on 21st May 2009. However on 22nd May 2009 a technician named Ranjeet from 2nd opposite party had visited but further failed to acknowledge and accept the defects in the product. The same was mentioned by the complainant on the job card NO.HO 7943 of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant had contacted the opposite parties in several occasions since 22nd May 2009 but the opposite parties had not responded in any from thereby displaying deficiency in services. Hence this complaint.



4. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A5 was marked and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte.



The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

ISSUE 1

5. This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties claiming compensation and refund of the whole amount of Rs.29,000 for the supply of low quality and defective product of refrigerator on 7th May 2009 with some other reliefs.

6. Ex.A1 is the invoice dated 7.5.09 for Rs.29,000. Ex.A2 is the photographs of defects of refrigerator. Ex.A3 is the legal notice sent to opposite parties and A4 & A5 are the acknowledgement cards. As per Ex.A1 the complainant has purchased Model RT 45, Capacity 400 ltrs, type – Frost free along with stabilizer We-care 1 KVA. As per complainant on 9.5.09 during the demonstration by the 2nd opposite party certain defects were noticed and the representative failed to clarify the reason for the defects and failed to rectify the same. Even after receiving the written complaints and legal notice, the defects were not rectified.


We are of the view the complainant has proved his case by way of Proof Affidavit as well as documents. The act of the opposite parties by selling low quality and defective product is nothing but an unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant is entitled to get necessary relief.

7. In the result, we direct the opposite parties to refund the whole amount of Rs.29,000 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% from 7.5.09 till the date of refund and to pay Rs.20,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and to pay cost of Rs.1000 to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Neeraj Kumar S/o Sh. Mohan Lal, #129, Opp. St. Thomas School, Near Coca Cola Godown, Bitna, Siudi, Pinjore.



….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1] Solan Shimla Traders, SCF No. 213, Near Local Bus Stand, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

2] Authorized Service Centre – Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Cabin No. 2, FF, SCO No. 1034-1035, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

3] Manufacturing Co. – Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., B-1, Sector 81, Phase-2, Noida District, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pardesh.



….…Opposite Parties







Succinctly put, the complainant purchased a Samsung Mobile (S 3500) from Solan Shimla Trader (for brevity ‘OP No.1’) on 16.7.2009, vide Bill No. 938. According to the Complainant, the said set was defective and was given thrice to the OP No. 2 – Authorized Service Center, but it could not be repaired to function properly, a request was made to the OPs either to repair the handset or to replace the same, but they flatly refused to accede to the request of the Complainant, due to which the complainant could not make use of it and had to suffer a lot. Hence, this complaint has been instituted.

2] OPs have not turned up inspite of due service of the notice and therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.

3] Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

4] We have heard the complainant and have also perused the record.

5] The Complainant has produced Annexure C-1 to prove that he purchased a brand new Samsung Mobile (S 3500) from OP No. 1 on 16.7.2009. Annexure C-1 is the copy of retail invoice, which substantiates this fact. The main grouse of the Complainant is that the aforesaid mobile became defective soon after its purchase and was repaired by OP No. 2.


But even thereafter, the problem emanated time & again, due to which he had to approach the OP No. 2 for atleast three times to rectify the defect. Annexure C-2 to C-4, which are copies of the job sheets dated 11.8.2009, 14.8.2009 and 20.8.2009, categorically prove that the Complainant had given the set for carrying out necessary repairs. OP No. 2 tried their level best to repair the set, but it did not function properly even after repairs.


Needless to mention here that the set was purchased on 16.7.2009 and it became defective just after few days of its purchase, so the defect came within the warranty period provided on the handset and Annexure C-1 too shows that it was under warranty period. OP No. 2 was therefore bound to get it repaired, which he failed to do and rather, thrust this unwarranted litigation on the Complainant. The OPs have not controverted any of these contentions as nobody appeared for them after service and were proceeded against exparte. It shows that the OPs have nothing to say against the claim made by the Complainant.

6] In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly, allowed. The OP No.2 is directed to repair the mobile handset in question within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and return the same to the Complainant by making it functional to his satisfaction after effecting necessary repairs without charging anything as the handset was under the warranty period.


OPs shall also pay Rs.550/- as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and mental agony suffered by the Complainant, along with Rs.550/- towards costs of proceedings to the complainant within aforesaid period, failing which they would be liable to refund Rs.6150/- i.e. the cost price of the mobile set along with interest @8% per annum since the filing of the complaint i.e. 08.09.2009 till the amount is actually paid to the Complainant.

Hi,
I had given my new samsung mobile phone for repair on 10th January, 2010. I was told by the samsung service center that the mother board of the phone needs to be replaced. I enquired about the status of the phone repair on 31st January , 2010 and I was told that the mother board is not available with Samsung and I need to wait till the company manufactures new motherboard. Also the samsung service center tried repairing my phone 3 times earlier but everytime it failed. I guess the Samsung Service people are very incapable of servicing their own brand mobile phones. I have lost all faith on samsung as a brand .

I would like to know if ever my phone will be repaired by Samsung or the money i invested with samsung has gone waste.

Samsung Service Center:

Shree Coomunication
Shop No. 39, Basement,
khadki Business Centre,
Khadki,Pune - 3
Ph : 9604518180, 25822584

Owner : Rahul Agarwal - 9890048854

My samsung Phone Details:

Model : Samsung M2710
IMEI / RSN No. 352342030183826
Date of Purchase : 30/08/2009
Name : Sudipta Kumar Dey
Phone No. 9970151128

Place of Purchase : The Mobile Store , Thakur Village, Kandivali (E), Mumbai
Customer Number as Per Bill : 102101977

Thanks & Regards

Sudipta Kr. Dey
Mb: 9970151128

Dear Sir,



I regret to inform you that you are not responding to any of my mails unless it
marked to Consumer Court. I don't know what intention is behind it. In my opinion it
is only harassment to customers nothing else. I could not expect such type of poor
service from such a big company.



Please refer to the quoted mail given below. After receiving my mobile no
approximately 5 days back some body from your department concerned telephoned me and
assured me, he will take care of it. But till then nothing has been done so far. You
are requested to do the needful at the earliest. Otherwise please inform me with
whom and where should I contact about this matter.



Subject Re: Re: Replacement of faulty mobile handset

Sent Date 11-12-2009 12:23:49 AM

From SUPPORT INDIA

Reply-To support.india@samsung.com

To Goutam Praharaj

Dear Customer,

Thank you for becoming a patron of Samsung product.

We have forwarded your query to our department concerned. The relevant person will
get in touch with you shortly.

We appreciate your patience and request you to bear with us till then.

Thanking and assuring you for best services always.

Customer Satisfaction Team

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.



Thanking you



Goutam Praharaj

Dear Samsung team,

I have purchased samsung mobile explore CDMA Model on 11-12-08.with in six months of
its purchase,some problem occured in its working. so in the month of june,I gave it
to your customer center. they told me that the problem is with the chip so they sent
it to noida for repairing and asked me to collect my phone back within 15 days.But
till two months they didnt give the phone inspite of continous followups. After this
I decided to talk to your customer care manager Mr Rajeev. contact no 9215944035 and
when i had a talk with him then he told me that now the phone cannot be repaired and
now they will give a cheque of my mobile cost which is Rs3400 in place of the phone.
And told me that I will recieve this cheque within 15days.Unfortunately again they
were not punctual with their timings and this continued for long.When I called them
this guy Rejeev told me that his area manager has a limit of

Rs5 lakhs in a month to sanction cheque for the customers and so now it will take
some more time.

Your customer care executive gave me a number of your area head

Mr Sandeep. contact no:9871643335. this number always went out of network or was
switched off.

And finally on 9-10-09 the first reply from your side came and they issued me a
replacement certificate and asked me to go to the dealer from where I have purchased
my mobile. Mr Rajeev said he will talk to that dealer and will ask him to give me
the cash of my mobile cost



I decided to go there and from there when I called Mr rajeev he avoided my calls and
never respond to me.


now I have finally given my handset to my dealer 10 days back and now I want the
cheque against it since I have already purchased two handsets. Please provide me
with the cheque as soon as possible otherwise I will go to the consumer court.

please make a note that my name is soursbh anand, but the cover note given by you is
by the name of sourabh sharma, i have requested them to please correct my name but
they have never done.

So please make cheque in favour of sourabh anand.
I am attaching the document i have handed over with my handset to the dealer but its
receving.

Regards


Sourabh Anand

H.no 76 HUDA Phase -1 Secotr -11

panipat haryana (132103)

Mobile No:- 9215660035, 0180-2660035

Dear Sir/Madam,

My name is Dr Rahul Tewari and I have purchased a Samsung mobile Hand set vide model no I 450 IMIE no 358489020082254 on 26/07/09 from Hot spot retails Ltd Shop no 24/2A Super Tech Shopprix Mall C 134/B Sector 61 NOIDA Book no 80 and Serial No 3998. Soon after purchasing the handset I Started facing problems. A very strange problem was that suddenly phone gets switched off but if any one calls me my phone will be ringing and to me its switched off, so my phone kept on ringing to the caller and I do not get any clue about that. I rushed to the dealer and he suggested me to go to the Samsung Service center. In the month of September 2009 I went to Authorized Samsung Service center at Hukum singh Market Sector 27 NOIDA and the executive there Mr Sandeep sharma ask me to leave the hand set and told me that handset will be corrected with in 7 days and collect the handset by next Tuesday. They have not provided me with any Standby set. I waited and struggled a lot for a week. I received my handset but to my utter surprise after few days i noticed my hand set problem is still same. I suffered a lot for next 2 months and when i came back to Delhi again i have again given the hand set back to the same service center on 15/12/2009. Again they kept the set and this time they kept it for 2 weeks though they told me to return the set with in 7 days. This time reason told to me for delaying the hand set is that the hand set has mother board problem and at present service center do not have mother board though earlier reason told to me was different. The height of irresponsibility is displayed by not providing me with any standby set and lacking explanation about the problem with the hand set. Now on 4th Jan 2010 they returned my hand set. But to your kind notice i am still suffering from the same problem. Now at present after every 10 minutes i need to check my mobile to confirm that my handset is on or off.

I am professionally a doctor and always on phone and its very important for me to be constantly in sound touch with my patients. I along with my patients and people whom i am connected are badly suffering from this negligent attitude of Samsung Customer Care staff.

Now i request you to kindly help me to get out of this problem. Either Samsung must replace my hand set or else refund my money back. I will happily buy a new phone.

Again i request you to please further do not let me suffer more mentally by not giving any response to my this plea. Please let me work and live in peace.

Regards

Dr Rahul Tewari
L 125 Sector 11 NOIDA
UP 201301
Phone 0120 2557258
9899000998

dear sir,
I have bought samsung GTB5722 handset. With the phone I tried to access internet by using the phone as the modem. I could not do so. The I called on samsung service numbers but their technical staff could not help me on this matter. I told them that I had exclusively bought this set for having double sim and internet access facility but they told me that this may be a problem of the new software KIES with which this mobile is operated. The response of samsung service centre is so poor that they simply say that we are connecting to our higher autorities and then keep on passing the phone from one person to other. Sir, I have spent 9000/- rupees in purchasing the handset. Please help me out.

C.P.Awasthi
Sadar Bazar Bhatapara
District Raipur, C.G 493118

Mob. 09425409657

Kuldeep Godara
Office:
33/166, Swarna Path,
Mansarovar, Jaipur
Tel.: (M) 9982122797 (M) 9414090555
Advocate, Rajasthan High Court

REGISTERED. A.D.
DATED: 15.05.2010
To,
1. M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43
Golf Course Road, Gurgaon-122002
Haryana (India)

2. M/s Hotspot Retails Ltd.
Through its Proprietor / Partner,
Shop No. C-3, Main Jayanti Market,
Jaipur, Rajasthan (India)



LEGAL NOTICE

Sir,

Under the instructions and on behalf of my client, Mr. Rishi Saini, I serve upon this legal notice as under: -


1. That my above named client was in need of a mobile phone and for this purpose my client approached you no.2 being the local dealer of Samsung. At that time, various good features of the Samsung Cell phones as well as assurance of very good performance and good after sales service including warranty of 12 months was given to my client.

2. That being highly impressed by the aforesaid assurances given by you no.2, my above named client purchased a Samsung SGH-I450 model Mobile Phone from you no.2 for Rs. 11,100/- dated .20.5.2009.


3. That soon after purchase of the said mobile phone, my client started facing various problem of improper working of the said mobile phone. In this connection my client made a complaint to you no.2 whereby my client was directed to contact the customer care of Samsung. On making contact, at the customer care of Nokia, it was informed that investigation of problem would take time and as such the instrument had to be left with them, accordingly the instrument was handed over at the customer care. However the problems were not rectified. Thereafter on number of occasions the instrument was handed over at the customer care for repair but the problems have not been rectified and till date my client is facing problem in the said instrument. The serial number of the device is 359081012624778 and the latest Work Order number is WA05401017077. It is relevant to state that the instrument is still under warranty.

4. That the poor functioning of the instrument within a short span from the date of its purchase clearly shows that the instrument suffers from manufacturing defect.


5. That due to act and omission on your part my client is facing mental and physical hardship. Due to your conduct, the purpose for which my client purchased the said mobile instrument has been frustrated.

6. That you’re such a conduct not only amounts to unfair trade practice but also amounts to rendering of deficient services to my client.




I, therefore, call upon you to immediately replace the mobile handset purchased by my client with a new handset or repay the amount of Rs. 11,100/- along with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of payment and also make the payment of Rs. 10,000/- towards physical discomfort & mental agony, suffered by my client and a sum of Rs. 2100/- towards cost and expenses of this legal notice within a period of 7 days failing which, my client has further instructed me to take appropriate legal action against you before competent court of law on your cost and risk.

(Kuldeep Godara)
ADVOCATE.

Kuldeep Godara
Office:
33/166, Swarna Path,
Mansarovar, Jaipur
Tel.: (M) 9982122797 (M) 9414090555
Advocate, Rajasthan High Court

REGISTERED. A.D.
DATED: 15.05.2010
To,
1. M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43
Golf Course Road, Gurgaon-122002
Haryana (India)

2. M/s Hotspot Retails Ltd.
Through its Proprietor / Partner,
Shop No. C-3, Main Jayanti Market,
Jaipur, Rajasthan (India)



LEGAL NOTICE

Sir,

Under the instructions and on behalf of my client, Mr. Rishi Saini, I serve upon this legal notice as under: -


1. That my above named client was in need of a mobile phone and for this purpose my client approached you no.2 being the local dealer of Samsung. At that time, various good features of the Samsung Cell phones as well as assurance of very good performance and good after sales service including warranty of 12 months was given to my client.

2. That being highly impressed by the aforesaid assurances given by you no.2, my above named client purchased a Samsung SGH-I450 model Mobile Phone from you no.2 for Rs. 11,100/- dated .20.5.2009.


3. That soon after purchase of the said mobile phone, my client started facing various problem of improper working of the said mobile phone. In this connection my client made a complaint to you no.2 whereby my client was directed to contact the customer care of Samsung. On making contact, at the customer care of Nokia, it was informed that investigation of problem would take time and as such the instrument had to be left with them, accordingly the instrument was handed over at the customer care. However the problems were not rectified. Thereafter on number of occasions the instrument was handed over at the customer care for repair but the problems have not been rectified and till date my client is facing problem in the said instrument. The serial number of the device is 359081012624778 and the latest Work Order number is WA05401017077. It is relevant to state that the instrument is still under warranty.

4. That the poor functioning of the instrument within a short span from the date of its purchase clearly shows that the instrument suffers from manufacturing defect.


5. That due to act and omission on your part my client is facing mental and physical hardship. Due to your conduct, the purpose for which my client purchased the said mobile instrument has been frustrated.

6. That you’re such a conduct not only amounts to unfair trade practice but also amounts to rendering of deficient services to my client.




I, therefore, call upon you to immediately replace the mobile handset purchased by my client with a new handset or repay the amount of Rs. 11,100/- along with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of payment and also make the payment of Rs. 10,000/- towards physical discomfort & mental agony, suffered by my client and a sum of Rs. 2100/- towards cost and expenses of this legal notice within a period of 7 days failing which, my client has further instructed me to take appropriate legal action against you before competent court of law on your cost and risk.

(Kuldeep Godara)
ADVOCATE.

I have purshased a samsung mobile (B 520) and within 1 year the software of the mobile was dead and when i contacted the samsung authorized service centre ,they have given me 1 week of time for repairing it AND GAVE ME WORK ORDER NO.80262
when i visited after 1 week ,they said that it will take one more week as it has to be replaced by samsung company.
I waited another 1 week and now it is more than 5 weeks,still they are saying that it has not got replaced by the company and service of the company is very bad .
The behaviour of the concerned persons in that authorized service centre is very harsh .
So kindly take my complaint against the service centre of the samsung whose address is given below.
MOBILE GALLERY
authorized samsung service centre
10-4-36 ,1st floor
Above HDFC,SBI ATM,
HUMAYUNNAGAR,
HYDERBAD-500028
PHNO-040-66844777

I have purshased a samsung mobile (GT-3310) and within 1 year the software of the mobile was dead and when i contacted the samsung authorized service centre ,they have given me 1 week of time for repairing it AND GAVE ME WORK ORDER NO.WA58531025622
when i visited after 1 week ,they said that it will take one more week as it has to be replaced by samsung company.
I waited another 1 week and now it is more than 5 weeks,still they are saying that it has not got replaced by the company and service of the company is very bad . PLZ REPLACE MY MOBILE URGENTLY..I FACE MANY PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF THAT.....
THANKS PLZ TAKE ACTION ON MY REQUEST.....

I HAVE PURCHASED A SAMSUNG MOBILE PHONE (GT-S5830) COST OF Rs.14000/- ON 25TH OF JUNE 2011. AFTER 5 DAYS I DOWNLOAD SOME MP3 SONGS IN MY PHONE. WHEN I PLAY IT SO I GOT THAT SOUND WAS VERY BAD. I IMMEDIATE MEET WITH DEALER FOR REPLACEMENT SO HE TOLD ME THAT HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS.I HAVE TO GO AT THE SERVICE CENTER FOR THIS. WHEN I GO TO THE SERVICE CENTER THEY SAID THEY WILL REPAIR THE SPEAKER. BUT I DONT WANT TO USE A REPAIR PHONE, I WANT REPLACEMENT. BECAUSE AFTER EXPEND Rs.14000/- AND IN JST FIVE DAYS I USE REPAIR PHONE NOT AT ALL!!!!! NEVER!!!!!.......PLZ HELP ME FOR THIS.AND TAKE ACTION ON MY REQUEST AS SOON AS POSSIBLE..I WILL BE VERY THANXFUL.........