DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/18/2021

Date of Institution : 03.02.2021

Date of Decision : 17.01.2022

Jagdeep Singh aged about 27 years son of Bhupinder Singh resident of Village Bhure, NanakPura Mohalla, Tehsil and District Barnala. …Complainant

Versus

1. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., registered office at 6th Floor, DLF Center, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

2. Rajan Telecom and computers, Gurudawara Ramsar Road, Dhanaula authorized dealer of Samsung through its Proprietor.

3. Samsung Care Plus, Opposite New Bus Stand, Barnala through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

4. Samsung Customer Care Service Centre, Opposite New Bus Stand, Barnala through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

…Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Sh. Honey Garg Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Chander Bansal Adv counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Opposite parties No. 2 to 4 exparte. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The complainant Jagdeep Singh filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Samsung India Electronic Private Limited, New Delhi and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant had purchased one Samsung G780 S20FE (Cloud Navy) 128 GB mobile phone for a sum of Rs. 49,990/- vide invoice No. 1077 dated 5.1.2021 from opposite party No. 2 having IMEI No. 358818744253405 which is manufactured by opposite party No. 1. It is further alleged that at the time of purchase the mobile phone was got insured by the complainant under accidental damage and liquid damage protection plan of opposite party No. 3 through the opposite party No. 2. The coverage of plan starts from 5.1.2021 to midnight 4.1.2022. On 15.1.2021 at about 11 AM the said phone was slipped from the hand of the complainant and fell down on the ground and badly damaged. The said incident was reported to the opposite party No. 3 through the opposite party No. 2 on the same day and after that opposite party No. 2 said to the complainant to prepare the estimate for the repair/loss of the mobile from opposite party No. 4 and complainant got prepared the estimate from the opposite party No. 4 on 18.1.2021 of Rs. 28,672.82. The complainant deposited the said estimate with the opposite party No. 2. But the opposite parties returned the said mobile to the complainant and informed him that his claim has been rejected by the opposite parties. The said act of the opposite parties is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to change the Samsung mobile with new one or to refund Rs. 49,990/- and to indemnify the loss of the complainant. 

2) To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 filed written reply taking preliminary objections that present complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties and no cause of action arose against the answering opposite party. The complainant has physically mishandled the negligently used the handset due to which display of the handset got damaged/broken. The handset was purchased on 5.1.2021 and he also purchased Samsung Protection Plan for accidental and liquid damage on 5.1.2021 the terms and conditions of the protection plan were provided to the complainant. The complainant reported physical damage of display screen of his handset by calling at customer care number on 12.1.2021 vide customer ID No. 1164285578. The protection plan obtained by the complainant has exclusion Clause 4.4.2 which states that plan will not cover any damage reported within 7 days of registration of the plan as there is cooling/look in period. In the present case the complainant reported damage on 7th days by calling at customer care centre so physical damage was not covered under the protection plan and repair will be done on chargeable basis only. The estimate of repair was given to the complainant by the opposite party No. 4 when complainant submitted his handset for repair on 18.1.2021 but the complainant refused to pay for repair and handset was not repaired. There is no deficiency in service or breach of contract on the part of the answering opposite party. The customer care representative apprised the complainant about the said exclusion clause, so he again approached the service centre on 18.1.2021 and mentioned the date of damage as 15.1.2021. The complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands. 

4. On merits, it is admitted that handset is manufactured by answering opposite party. The protection plan has 7 days free look in period/cooling period and no claim is maintainable if the damage of the product occurs during first 7 days of commencement of protection plan. Rest of the averments of the complaint are denied by the opposite party No. 1. However, it is admitted that the complainant submitted his handset for repair with opposite party No. 4 on 18.1.2021 and as the handset was physically damaged and not covered under warranty and also not cover under insurance protection plan gave estimate of repair to complainant, but he refused to pay. Lastly, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint against the answering opposite party with cost.  

5. The opposite parties No. 2 to 4 did not appear before this Commission despite service, so the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.10.2021. 

6. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill dated 5.1.2021 Ex.C-2, copy of policy Ex.C-3, copy of estimate Ex.C-4, copy of Aadhaar Card   Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence. The complainant not filed rejoinder to the written reply filed by the opposite party No. 1. 

7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1  tendered in evidence affidavit of Sandeep Sahijwani Ex.OP-1/1, copy of job sheet Ex.OP-1/2, photographs Ex.OP-1/3 to Ex.OP-1/5, copy of warranty card Ex.OP-1/6, copy of extended warranty plan Ex.OP-1/7  and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No. 1. 

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. 

9. It is established from the Ex.C-2 that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question on 5.1.2021 and it is also cleared from Ex.C-3 that complainant had also purchased the Samsung Care Accidental Damage and Liquid Damage Protection Plan on 5.1.2021. The opposite party No. 1 taken the objection in their written version that the protection plan obtained by the complainant has exclusion Clause 4.4.2 which stated that plan will not cover any damage reported within 7 days of the registration of the plan as there is cooling/look in period. It is further alleged by the opposite party No. 1 that the complainant reported damage with customer care on 12.1.2021, therefore as per terms and conditions of the protection plan 7 days have been provided as cooling period/look in period during which the opposite parties can refuse/return or take back the said protection plan. Therefore, the mobile set in question is not covered in the protection plan as per terms and conditions. 

10. It is surprised that the opposite party No. 1 has not produced any evidence regarding the contention that the complainant approached opposite parties on 12.1.2021 with the complaint of damage. On the other hand, the complainant alleged that the mobile was slipped from his hands on 15.1.2021. The opposite party No. 1 themselves produced the job sheet dated 18.1.2021 Ex.OP-1/2 vide which it is cleared that the complainant approached the opposite party No. 4 on 18.1.2021. 

11. From the above discussion it is established that the mobile set in question was insured under the Samsung Care Accidental Damage and Liquid Damage Protection Plan. The complainant has also produced the estimate dated 18.1.2021 Ex.C-4 issued by Kamlesh Telecom. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Authorized Service Center, Opposite Bus Stand, Barnala as Ex.C-4 vide which it is also cleared that the display/LCD of the mobile set was damaged. In this way by not repairing the mobile set in question under the protection plan is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No. 1, 3 and 4. 

12. In view of the above discussion, present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties No. 1, 3 and 4 and opposite parties No. 1, 3 and 4 are directed to repair the mobile set of the complainant under the “Samsung Care Accidental Damage and Liquid Damage Protection Plan” free of costs. The opposite parties No. 1, 3 and 4 are also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 3,000/- as costs and litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties No. 1, 3 and 4 are directed to refund the billing amount of the mobile set i.e. Rs. 49,990/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 05.01.2021 till its actual realization. The opposite parties No. 1, 3 and 4 jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        17th Day of January 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member