District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.209/2020.
Date of Institution: 22.07.2020.
Date of Order: 19.09.2022.
Raj Kumar Pathak son of Shri Suresh Chand, Resident of House No. B-5/202, SRS Royal Hills, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20 to 24 floors two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Secator-34, Gurugram – 122002. Through its authorized person.
2. Teleriksson Gallery, SCO-9, Ist floor, front side, sEctor-16, HUDA Market, Faridabad through its authorized person..
3. Shree Shubham communication, Railway Road, G.T.Road, Panipat through its Manager/Principal Officer.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Pankul Bharti, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. K.S.Rathore counsel for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 exparte vide order dated 08.02.2022.
Sh. Devender Singh, counsel for opposite party No.3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone model Samsung Galazy S10 128.8GB Prism Black IMEI NO. 354622100420762.01 and 354623100420760/01 from opposite party No.3 against the total value of Rs.66,900/- on 19.8.2019 vide invoice NO. SSC-1084 dated 19.82019 with a warranty of one year. From the very beginning form purchasing the mobile phone the phone heating up and battery drained very fast. The complainant made a complaint to opposite party No.1 and email to service center of opposite party No.1 on 14.09.2019 but opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed towards the request of the complainant. The complainant thereafter sent so many reminders to opposite party No.1 till 10.05.2020. At last opposite party No.1 sent the reply mail and appoint one Executive namely Abhishek Srivastava contact No. 9717990262 to resolve the problem, but he was failed to provide any concrete solution. At last, the executive asked the complainant to submit their phone to the service centre for proper inspection and further required action. On 8.6.2020 the complainant handed over the above said mobile phone to opposite party N.2. On 13.06.2020 opposite party No.2 had handed over the above said mobile phone to the complainant but from the next day the same problem was faced by the complainant i.e. heating problem and battery back up. Even the phone temperature raised upto 54 degree Celsius. On 14.6.2020 the complainant charged his phone battery but it charged very less even after four hours. It takes 6 to 7 minutes for 1% charging and approximately takes 600 minutes/10 hours to charge full battery. The complainant had video and screen shoots about the battery and heating problem . Opposite party No.3 had loosed the charging point and damaged the mobile phone of the complainant. The complainant again raised complaint through so many emails and telephonic calls and requested the opposite parties to refund the amount of the complainant because he had never enjoyed the new Samsung Galazy S10 128.8 GB Prism Black which the company claimed one of the best phone in this segment. The complainant sent legal notice dated 04.07.2020 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant
has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) refund the entire money of Rs.66,900/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchasing the mobile phone till its realization..
b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 31,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant in regards to complaint regarding the product in question approached to the service center of company for first time on 8.6.2020 vide job sheet No. 4303672882 i.e. after a period of approximate 10 months from the date of purchase. It was well known to a prudent man of ordinary sense that for any issue in the product purchased by the customer, one should visit to the nearest service center of manufacturer, but in the present case, the complainant alleged that an email was sent to the answering company regarding some alleged defect. The said fact was beyond the sense that instead of presenting the handset before nearest service center, the complainant directly sent email in regard to some alleged defect. The said averment were not enable in the eyes of law and shows the malafide intention of complainant just only to create the imaginary situation of being harassed at the hand of answering opposite party. The complaint of the complainant was nothing but a concocted story based on no facts. Although, on that occasion dated 8.6.2020, it was reported by the complainant that there was a heating and battery backup issue in the handset. The engineer of the service center duly received the handset and checked and found that PBA (Mother Board) & Kit of the handset needs replacement. The engineer told to complainant the same fact and complainant agreed for same and accordingly the PBA (mother board) & Kit of the handset got replaced and the handset started working fine. The complainant took the delivery of handset to his full satisfaction. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Registered notice issued to opposite party No.2 on 12.1.2022 not received back either served or unserved. Tracking details filed in which it had been mentioned that “Item Delivery Confirmed” Hence, opposite party No.2 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 08.02.2022.
4 Opposite party No.3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had no locus standi to file the present complainant. The complaint of the complainant was without any cause of action against the answering opposite party which was uncalled for unwarranted and the answering opposite party had been illegally dragged into false litigation as the complaint was false frivolous,, sham and concocted one based upon concocted story and upon untrue facts. Opposite party No. 3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Samsung India Electronics & Ors. with the prayer to: a) refund the entire money of Rs.66,900/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchasing the mobile phone till its realization. b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 31,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Raj Kumar Pathak, Ex.C-1 – Tax Invoice, Ex.C-2 – Acknowledgement of Service Request, Ex.C-3 54 your phone is hot 8 apps are consuming your system resource, Ex.C-4 – legal notice., Ex.C-5 – postal receipts., Ex.C-6 – Aadhar card.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly
agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1, Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Rajeev Gupta C/o Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Presently works for gain with Samsunbg India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Having s its corporate office at: 20th to 24th floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF Phase V, Gurgaon, Ex.R-1 – Warranty card,, Ex.R-2 – Acknowledgement of Service Request.
8. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a mobile phone model Samsung Galazy S10 128.8GB Prism Black IMEI NO. 354622100420762.01 and 354623100420760/01 from opposite party No.3 against the total value of Rs.66,900/- on 19.8.2019 vide invoice No. SSC-1084 dated 19.82019 vide Ex.C-1. From the very beginning form purchasing the mobile phone the phone heating up and battery drained very fast. During the course of arguments, complainant has placed on record emails dated 14.09.2019, 15.5.2020,, 08.06.2020, 09.06.2020, 11.06.2020,. 14.06.2020 & 15..06.2020 regarding phone problem had not resolved by Samsung service centre & request for replacement. Lodging of several emails to opposite parties ipso facto go to prove that the mobile phone in question had a manufacturing defect which was not removed by the opposite parties. As such, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence complaint is allowed.
9. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3, jointly & severally, are directed to replace the mobile phone in question with a new one of the same value, subject to return the old mobile phone in question within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There are no orders as to costs . Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on:19.09.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
