Haryana

Karnal

CC/139/2021

Sameena Sheikh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Chauhan

16 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 139 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.08.03.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:16.03.2023

 

Sameena Sheikh d/o Shri Tek Ram, resident of house no.542-L, Model Town Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, Branch office, SCO-7, 1^st floor, Sector-14, Urban Estate, Karnal, Haryana 132002, through its Manager/authorized signatory.

 

2.     Samsung Service Centre Authorized by Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited Deep associates, shop no.20-22, Asa Ram Market, model Town Karnal through its proprietor.

 

3.     Swaagat, the communication People, opposite Head Post Office, Kunjpura Road, Karnal through its proprietor.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri S.S.Chauhan, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Opposite party no.2 exparte.

    Shri Narender Kumar, counsel for the OP no.3.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:  

 

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs) on the averments that complainant had purchased  a Mobile Make Samsung, Model Glaxy A51 Prism Crush Black, IMEI 355041110381832 from OP no.3 for Rs.23999/-, vide bill bearing no.SW 9272 dated 07.03.2020. The said mobile has been financed from Samsung Sure and at the time of purchase the complainant paid Rs.7724/- as cash to the OP no.3 and remaining amount of Rs.16275/- i.e. finance amount included as per remark in invoice Rs.349 @ 1.77% interest is to be paid in eight installments. Now all the installments has been paid by the complainant and nothing is due towards the complainant. The complainant purchased the mobile set of Black colour and mentioned the same itself in the bill also, but OP no.3 intentionally and dishonestly gave the mobile set of Blue Colour to the complainant and when complainant asked the OP no.3 in this regard, then he said that now the box is opened and compelled the complainant to take the set of blue colour only, with accessories as contained/mentioned on its box. The said mobile set is imported and is being marketed in India by the OP no.1 and OP o.2 is the service centre of OP no.1. After sometime of the purchase of said mobile, it started creating problems i.e. display off during calls and off, speaker problem, hanging and heating problem etc. Initially, the complainant did not much bothered about the said problems and when these problems aggravated then the complainant visited to the OP no.3 and complained about the aforesaid defects but OP no.3 did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and returned the same after rebutting/restarted the same by assuring that it will working smoothly/normally after sometime. Thereafter also when the complainant checked the functions of the mobile, it has found that the aforesaid defects were not removed. On 28.07.2020, the brother of the complainant visited the OP no.2 and complained about the aforesaid defects, OP no.2 received the mobile set.  After checking of the mobile set, the official of the OP no.2 told the complainant that the mobile set is to be repaired/replaced and gave a job sheet dated 30.07.2020. On 31.07.2020, brother of complainant made a call to OP no.2 and OP no.2 replied that the motherboard is dead and said about repaired estimate and asked otherwise take it back. The brother of complainant told the OP no.2 that the mobile set is within warranty period but OP no.2 did not bother the same. Then complainant made several complaints through emails to the OP no.2 in this regard and demanded the repaired mobile back or replacement of the same or refund of its price but OP no.2 every time asked the complainant that the mobile set is to be sent to the Samsung Head Office and not handed over the mobile to the complainant till date. The complainant made several requests to the OPs for replacement of the defective mobile set or to refund its cost but OPs neither replaced the mobile set nor refund the cost of the same. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the unit has been duly checked by the engineer of service centre of OP and same has been found liquid damaged and as per warranty conditions, the handset is out of warranty but knowing well all the circumstances, the complainant has made false story just only to grab illegal benefits of her own wrong. It is further pleaded that complainant approached to the service centre for the first time on 30.07.2020 and reported Handset No Power On issue in her handset. The engineer of the OP duly received the handset and issued a job sheet with effect remarks ELS Pending i.e. (entry level screening pending) meaning thereby the handset was only received and the intense check of the handset in order to detect the shortcoming/fault in the handset is pending. After the handset got deposited, the handset was got thoroughly checked and found liquid damaged. The engineer contacted to complainant and told that the warranty of the handset has got barred and the repair of the handset shall be on chargeable basis and accordingly an estimate of repair was also provided to complainant, but complainant refused to pay the charges of repair. After that, the service centre of OP  contacted the complainant so many times  and requested to get the handset repaired as per terms of warranty, but complainant refused to pay the charges of repair. It is submitted that OP is always ready to provide services to complainant as per warranty conditions, but complainant is not ready to get the handset repaired. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 04.05.2022 of the Commission.

4.             OP no.3 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that the name of OP no.3 arrayed in the present complaint just to harass and humiliate the OP no.3 without any rhyme, reason and justification. OP no.3 is not the proper party in the present complaint, hence the name of the OP no.3 may kindly be deleted from the array of the complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant never came to the shop of OP no.3 regarding his alleged complaint, moreover, for services and defects it is the only manufacturer company who is responsible for the same and not the OP no.3. It is denied that OP no.3 intentionally and dishonestly gave the mobile set of blue colour to the complainant as alleged. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill invoice Ex.C1, copy of job sheet Ex.C2, copy of email dated 15.08.2020 Ex.C3, copy of CD regarding call recording of service centre and seller shop Ex.C4, copies of emails sent to OPs Ex.C5 to Ex.C8, original box of mobile Mark-A and its copy Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 05.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sandeep Sahijwani, General Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of warranty policy Ex.OP1, copy of job card Ex.OP2, cop of technical report Ex.OP3, copy of affidavit of Dharam Singh Engineer Ex.OP4, copy of damages pics Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on 16.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for the OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajeev Kumar Proprietor Ex.OP3/A and closed the evidence on 16.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

9.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

10.           Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased the mobile set in question from the OP no.3. After sometime of its purchase, mobile set started creating problems. Complainant approached the OP no.2 and complained about the defect in the mobile set. OP no.2 kept the mobile set  and told the c that the mobile set is to be repaired/replaced. On 31.07.2020, OP no.2 said that the motherboard is dead and said about repaired estimate. Complainant told the OP no.2 the mobile set is within warranty period but OP no.2 did not bother the same. OP no.2 did not hand over the mobile to the complainant till date. The complainant made several requests to the OPs for replacement of the defective mobile set or to refund its cost but OPs neither replaced the mobile set nor refund the cost of the same and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

11.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant deposited the mobile set in question to the service centre of the OP for repair and after that the handset was thoroughly checked and found liquid damaged. The liquid damage mobile not falls under the purview of warranty conditions of the company and intimation in this regard was given to the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

12.           Learned counsel for the OP no.3 argued that name of OP no.3 arrayed in the present complaint just to harass and humiliate the OP no.3. OP no.3 is not the proper party in the present complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.3.

13.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

14.           Admittedly, the complainant purchased the mobile set in question on 07.03.2020 and it becomes defective after sometimes of its purchase. It is also admitted that complainant approached the OPs first time on 30.07.2020. It is also admitted that engineer of the OPs kept the mobile set for repair. OP no.1 has specifically mentioned in its reply that after checking the mobile set in question they found liquid damage i.e. the damage due to contact with liquid/water, so the mobile set does not fall under the purview of the warranty conditions of the company.  To prove its version, OP has placed on file affidavit of Dharam Singh Engineer Ex.OP4 and Liquid Damage Indicator Sticker turned from white to Red due to liquid entry Ex.OP5. shri Dharam Singh Engineer in his affidavit specifically stated that unit of the complainant deposited for first time on 30.07.2020 and reported Handset No Power On issue. He duly received the unit and in order to detect the shortcoming/fault in the unit, the unit was got thoroughly checked by him and found liquid damaged i.e. damage due to contact with liquid/water. He contacted to complainant and told that the warranty of the unit has got barred and the repair of the unit shall be on chargeable basis. The unit of the complainant is not covered under warranty due to warranty exclusion and after knowing all the facts, complainant got repaired her unit. Furthermore, on seeing the OP5 Liquid Damage Indicator Sticker turned from white to Red due to liquid entry, which clearly shows that the unit in question is having liquid. The complainant has failed to rebut the version of the OPs by leading any cogent and convincing evidence that the mobile set in question was not liquid damage.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

15.       Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:16.03.2023                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

  Member                   Member