Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 594.
Instituted on : 18.11.2019
Decided on : 05.08.2022
Ravinder Kumar age-42 yrs. son of Sh. Karan Singh, R/o H.No.1466/31, Kamla Nagar, Rohtak, Haryana, Mobile No. 9355621890.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, 6th floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director.
- Savex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. No. 755/19, 13th Cross, Jayanagar, 7th Block, Bengaluru-560082, Karnataka through its Proprietor.
- Samsung Care, Samsung Mobile Rohtak, B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Jain Mansion HUDA Complex near Old Gymkhana Club Rohtak, Rohtak Haryana-124001, through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ravinder Dhankhar, Advocate complainant in person.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Kailash Singh Adhikari, Asstt. Manager on behalf of
Opposite party No. 2.
Opposite party no. 3 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per complainant are that the he had purchased a Smart mobile phone of Samsung Company, Model Samsung M 20, with IMEI No.354554105598773 for a sum of Rs.11,990/- with one year warranty and guarantee vide bill receipt dated 10.07.2019 online through Amazon Online Shopping. It is further submitted that from the very beginning, there were some minor problems in the phone, like battery performance, slow voice, hang problem. Thereafter on 17.08.2019, the mobile phone suddenly get completely out of order as the mobile phone get automatic switch off and the phone did not switch on. On 19.08.2019, complainant went to the opposite party no. 3 for repairing of his phone where they replied that there is no warranty and no guarantee as there are chances that the mobile phone may be physically damaged. The Manager of authorized Service Centre without checking the phone of the complainant had threatened the complainant to get out the service centre. It is further submitted that the complainant received a reply from opposite party no. 1 on 09.09.2019 in which it was stated by opposite party no. 1 that no serial number, model and valid phone number have been mentioned in the notice, whereas all the necessary details of the product model alongwith IMEI No. of the handset is already mentioned on the bill given by the opposite party no. 1 as well as on the back side of the handset itself and the complainant mentioned all these things in the Regd. AD notice. The act of opposite parties of supplying the defective mobile set to the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the mobile in question or to return the amount of the mobile phone i.e. Rs.11900/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that the opposite party has an online system to enter all claims/complaints vide IEMI/Sr. No. in each and every case but in the present complaint as per details mentioned in the complaint, no details found in the online system of the answering company which means that complainant has never approached to the answering opposite party. It is further submitted that the answering opposite party had received a legal notice sent by the complainant regarding the alleged defect in the unit and it was duly replied. It is further submitted that the answering company provides one year warranty on the unit from the date of purchase of unit and also warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per warranty policy. There is no deficiency in services on the party of answering company. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply has submitted that the answering opposite party is merely the authorized dealers/distributor of Samsung Products and deals in selling/distribution of the same and in no manner concerned with the manufacturing or production of any Samsung products nor are the opposite party authorized to provide any form of after sales services of repairs. The answering opposite party denies that they have supplied a defected mobile phone to the complainant in the shadow of online purchase. It is further submitted that upon the order placed by the complainant the opposite party no. 2 provided the handset to the complainant and the same was received in good and satisfactory condition without raising any grievances at the time of delivery. Hence, opposite party no.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite party No.3 did not appear despite service of notice through Process-Server of this Commission. As such opposite party No.3 was proceeded against exparte.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence on dated 11.04.2022. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-3 and closed his evidence on dated 20.05.2022. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has tendered affidavit RW-2/A and closed his evidence on 11.04.2022.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. In the present case the complainant had purchased a mobile phone vide bill Ex.C1 dated 10.07.2019 for a sum of Rs.11990/-. The grievance of the complainant is that the mobile in question was defective from the very beginning. So he sent a legal notice Ex.C2 dated 28.08.2019 to the opposite parties mentioning therein that there were some problems like poor battery performance, slow voice, hang problem and the said mobile stopped working(switch off) on 17.08.2019 and he contacted the opposite party No.3 for the repair but the opposite party No.3 without checking the mobile phone stated that the mobile was physically damaged. Opposite party No.1 in reply dated 09.09.2019 placed on record as Ex.C4, has submitted that: “No serial number, complaint number details etc. are mentioned in the captioned notice”. In this regard it is observed that all the details related to the mobile phone have been mentioned in the legal notice. However, no complaint number was given by the service centre, hence the same is not mentioned in the legal notice. But on the other hand, regarding the allegations leveled by the complainant in his legal notice against the service centre i.e. opposite party No.3, no action has been taken by the opposite party No.1. Moreover opposite party No.3 also failed to appear before this Commission despite the fact that opposite party No.3 was served through Process-Server of this Commission and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.01.2020 of this Commission. As such it is presumed that opposite party no.3 has nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite party No.3 stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 3 and opposite party No.1 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 25% depreciation on it (Rs.11990/- less 25% i.e. Rs.8992/-).
7. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the compliant and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.8992/-(Rupees eight thousand nine hundred ninety two only) and to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within 45 days from the date of decision, failing which opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite party No.1 at the time of making the payment by the opposite party.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
05.08.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
