Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/942/2021

Manish Bhatnagar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mobile Care, Authorised Service Centre Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

J.K. Babbar

02 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/942/2021
Date of Institution	:	27.12.2021
Date of Decision	:	02/12 /2022

 

Manish Bhatnagar S/o late Sh. R.C. Bhatnagar R/o #1542/2, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh.  

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Mobile Care, authorized service centre Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. SCO-62, Ist floor, Swastik Vihar, MDC, Sector 6 Panchkula, Haryana 134109, through its proprietor Dhanveer singh
2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd 20^th-24^th floor, two Harizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF Phase V, Gurgaon (Haryana) 122202.

 … Opposite Party(ies)

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
Argued BY:-	Complainant in person. OP No.1 exparte.    Sh. Devinder Kumar, Adv. for Opposite Party No.2.

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1. In nutshell the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1  for repair of his Samsung make M-40 mobile handset purchased on 17.Nov. 2019 for the fault of power drain on 2.12.2021. The Opposite Party No.1 after duly checking the mobile handset issued an estimate of Rs.2800/- for indenting the required parts and asked for advance deposit of Rs.1500/, which was duly paid by the complainant and the Opposite Party No.1 issued acknowledgement-cum- receipt Annexure C-1.  It is alleged that despite keeping the handset with it for 9 days the Opposite Parties failed to procure the spare parts required for the handset in question. Further alleged that when the complainant demanded for return back of the handset in question and refund of advance money, the Opposite Party No.1 asked the complainant to wait for some time and issued fresh estimate of Rs.10,000/- showing the motherboard faulty, which required to be replaced. The Op No.1 also charged Rs.177/- as estimate charges vide Annexure C-2. The complainant protested the damaging of motherboard of his handset which was duly checked by Opposite Party No.1 at the time of issuing the estimate on 2.12.2021.  The complainant refused to sign on the estimate showing motherboard defective/damaged to which Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant that then the handset would not be returned unless the complainant sign the estimate. It is also alleged that the Opposite Party No.1 even did not agree to give copy of estimate to the complainant. Alleging the aforesaid act of the OPs as deficiency in service the instant complaint has been filed.
2. In its written statement the OP No.2 while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainant approached to the service centre of answering Opposite Party on 2.12.2021 i.e. after a period of approximate two years from the date of purchase and reported battery drain/not charging problem.  The service centre deposited the unit as per terms and conditions and told to the complainant that the handset will be checked and duly put remarks of ELS pending on the job sheet.  It was duly informed to the complainant that as per terms and conditions of the service and as per the policy of the company the final cost of the repair will be informed after complete check.  It is clearly mentioned in para No.5 of the terms that the product is accepted for service subject to prior verification and the said fact was told to the complainant and also put remarks for the same on the job sheet as ELS pending. It is asserted that after complete check the engineer of the service centre found that the mother board , battery  and charging jack of the unit are faulty and needs to be replaced. The repair estimate was issued to the complainant but the complainant refused to pay charges of repair and started dmenading repair on less cost.  All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied being wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.  OP No.1 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 27.07.2022 it was proceeded against exparte.
4.  The contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The sole grouse of the complainant in the present complaint is that the handset in question, which was purchased on 17.11.2019 faced a faulty power drain on 2.12.2021 and therefore, the same was shown to the Opposite Party No.1. for the necessary repairs. As per Annexure C-1 the estimate was given to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2800/- and advance  payment of Rs.1500/- was made by the complainant to the Opposite Party No.1 for the necessary repairs as asked by it.  The aforesaid fact is clearly mentioned over Annexure C-1. As per the case of the complainant keeping the handset and advance amount with it for almost two weeks and after various follow ups, the complainant was given revised estimate of Rs.10,000/- by the Opposite Party No.1 but the complainant refused to accept the same. Opposite Party No.1 issued receipt of Rs.177/- also as estimate charges. Hence, aggrieved against the act of the OPs for non-repairing of the aforesaid handset despite receiving advance of Rs.1500/- out of total estimated amount of Rs.2800/-  and later on asking for more amount claiming the damage of the mother board of the handset in question, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
7.     The stand taken by Opposite Party No.2 is that as per clause 5  of Annexure C-1 the product was accepted for service subject to prior verification and the said fact was told to the complainant and particular remarks for the same was mentioned in the job sheet as ELS pending. It has been contended that after complete check up of the mobile, the service engineer found that the mother board, battery and charging jack was faulty and so needed to be replaced, therefore, the revised repair estimate was issued to the complainant but he refused to pay the charges of the repair. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the answering Opposite Party.
8. Perusal of Annexure C-1 reveals that the complainant paid Rs.1500/- in advance towards the estimated amount of Rs.2800/- as asked for by the Opposite Party No.1 for the purpose of necessary repairs. Meaning thereby the complainant never asked for the repair free of costs under warranty rather paid  the advance amount as demanded by the Opposite Party No.1. We are of the view that the authorized service centre must not be so negligent that it even did not open the mobile cover before accepting the same for repair.  It is out of our understanding that how the Opposite Party No.1 could come to the conclusion of charging Rs.2800/- and asked for payment of Rs.1500/- as advance. Thereafter taking the dual stand that the motherboard and the other parts were also damaged and it demanded more amount. We feel that certainly the mobile cover must have been duly opened, inspected properly after removing SIM card etc., which is duly acknowledged in the Annexure C-1. The Opposite Parties despite earning huge profits from selling its branded products is adopting deceptive and evasive practices.  In  clause 5 of the terms and conditions again the dual stand has been taken by the Opposite Parties as only partial contents of the same has been reproduced in its written statement leaving the focus from the content which is very important to read.
9. Hence, we are of the opinion that the act of OPs of issuing revised fresh estimate for same handset against which already estimate was issued and even advance payment was received by Opposite Party No.1, non-providing of proper services, non-returning the handset and keeping the same in their possession amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, which is writ large  from the record. Hence, the complaint deserves to be allowed.
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. To repair the handset in question. After repair of the handset the complainant shall pay the remaining amount of Rs.1300/- to the OPs.
2. to pay composite amount of ₹3000/- to the complainant for harassment   as well deficiency in service and towards cost of litigation.

 

11.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(i) above.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Sd/-

[Pawanjit Singh]

President

Sd/-

[Surjeet Kaur]

Member