Delhi

North

CC/350/2022

MAYANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

07 Oct 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No. 350/2022

In the matter of

Sh. Mayank             

S/O Sh.Deepak

R/O H.No.3582, Indra Market

Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007                                                              ...Complainant

vs

 

M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd

(Through its Manager/Commercial Manager)

Head Office:-

20^th to 24^th floor, Two Horizon Centre

Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF Ph.V

Gurgaon, Haryana-122202

Also at

Registered office:-

6^th floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, Janpath

Connaught Place, New Delhi, Delhi-110001                                         ... Opposite party

 

ORDER

7/10/2024

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

            The present complaint has been filed by Sh. Mayank, the Complainant against M/s Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. as OP invoking the jurisdiction this commission under Section 35, of the CPA, 2019. 

1. Briefly stated facts as per the complaint are, on 09/03/2022 the Complainant ordered Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra for Rs.1,03,077/- on EMI basis.  The loan was sanctioned by HDFC Bank with EMI of Rs.11,453/- per month for 09 months. The said EMIs were to be deducted from the account of the complainant’s mother, Mrs. Babli. On 11/03/2022, the complainant cancelled the said order with OP for personal reasons. 
2. On 13/03/2022, the order was cancelled and the same was communicated through email.   On 14/03/2022, the complainant was informed that the refund process will be initiated and the same will be refunded within 14 days (i.e. w.e.f. 14/03/2022 to 28/03/2022) but till the filing of the complaint the refund has not been credited to the bank account of the complainant.   
3. The complainant has stated that despite cancellation of the order, three EMIs for the month of April, May and June 2022 have already been deducted from his bank account.  The complainant visited HDFC bank, Clock tower branch, Subzi Mandi, Delhi where he was informed by the officials that the loan cannot be cancelled as the refund has not been received from the OP.
4. On 05/06/2022, the complainant was informed through email stating that :-
5.  
5. It has been further submitted by the complainant that failure to refund the amount by OP will result in deduction of the fourth instalment for the month of July 2022, which will cause significant financial hardship.  The complainant has alleged that OP has been using Rs.57,265/- despite cancellation of the order and has deducted the fifth instalment of Rs.11,453/- from the account of the complainant on 05/08/2022.
6. Legal notice dated 21/06/202 was served upon OP, which was neither replied nor complied with. Alleging deficiency in services and harassment, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to refund Rs.57,265/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.; compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment.
7. The complainant has annexed the screen shot of the email received from OP with reference to order cancellation and order refund; statement of account for the period 01/04/2022 to 05/08/2022, legal notice dated 14/06/2022 along with postal receipt with the complaint.
8. Notice of the present complaint was issued to OP. Thereafter, written statement was filed upon service.
9. OP has raised several preliminary objections such as the complainant has (seems to be a typographical error should have been “has not”) provided any relevant documentary proof in support of his allegation. It has been submitted that the OP is a globally renowned manufacturer of various types of electronic and household items such as mobile, LED TV, Washing machine, Refrigerator etc. which are globally acclaimed for its class and quality and the products manufactured by OP pass through stringent quality check and test trials.  OP is well supported by service centres through wide network for attending any service/repairs and assistance to the customer in distress. 
10. It has been submitted that the complainant has purchased Samsung Handset on 09/03/2022 for a consideration of Rs.96,528/- on EMI basis using his HDFC bank credit card with monthly EMI of Rs.11,453/-  with full satisfaction.  The said product carried a warranty for a period for one year and in case of any issue/problem the company shall repair the same free of cost within the warranty period and in case of damaged product or violation of terms and conditions the warranty policy should be void and shall be repaired on chargeable basis. 
11.  It has been admitted that the complainant has cancelled the order on 11/03/2022.  OP investigated the issue and post investigation it was revealed that the refund had already been initiated on 14/03/2022 to the original source i.e. HDFC Bank and same was informed to the complainant.  However, the complainant with malafide intention in order to harass and extort money from OP has filed the present complaint and same should be dismissed with cost.
12. It has been further submitted that the complainant has not impleaded HDFC Bank, a necessary party, who has charged interest on the said amount to the tune of Rs.6,500/. OP has refunded the amount of Rs.96,528/- to the original source and if anything is pending, it is on behalf of the bank and not on OP. Thus the complaint should be dismissed for non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties.  
13. OP had duly explained the complainant the procedure of refund.  Prayer clause of the complaint has further denied with the prayer for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.  They have filed the copy of warranty terms and conditions as Annexure-A with the written statement.
14. Rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint and denying those of written statement.  It has been denied that HDFC bank is a necessary party. It has been denied that OP has refunded Rs.96,528/- to the original source i.e. HDFC Bank.
15. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of his complaint.  He has also relied on the annexure annexed with the complaint.
16. OP has got examined Sh.Sandeep Sahajewani, Authorised Representative on their behalf.  He has also repeated the content of the written statement and has relied upon the copy of the warranty policy and has got exhibited as Ex.OPW-1/A.
17.  We have heard the arguments of the complainant appearing in person and Ld. Counsel for OP. We have also perused the material placed on record. The complainant has alleged that OP did not refund the amount for the order which was cancelled.  Thus, the bank continued to deduct the EMIs from the account.
18. The factum of placing order on 09/03/2022 and subsequent cancellation by the complainant is not in dispute. The grievance of the complainant is that the order was cancelled by him, which was confirmed vide email dated 13/03/2022. The complainant was informed that order ID #11052793006 had been cancelled and refund will be initiated shortly, which may take up to 7-10 business days.
19. The complainant has stated that the total invoice amount was Rs. 1,03,077/- after adjustment of discount of Rs. 6,500/-given by the OP.  The said discount was given in lieu of interest, which the complainant had to pay on EMI.    
20.  We have gone through email dated 15/03/2022 vide which the complainant is informed that a refund of Rs.2,10,952.11 has been initiated on 14/03/2022 against the order and it further guides the complainant to contact the respective bank for EMI cancellation.  The same is reiterated in email dated 27/03/2022, 19/04/2022 and 25/04/2022, 17/06/2022.  However, in email dated 20/06/2022 and 21/06/2022 it has been stated that the refund of Rs.96,528/- has been initiated on 14/03/2022 against the order. Thus there is discrepancy with respect to the amount of refund initiated by OP. It is observed that the said emails are being sent without any due diligence and verification.
21. OP on the one hand has been assuring the complainant that the refund of Rs.96,528/- has been initiated on 14/03/2022, however,  OP has not filed a single document to substantiate their defence. The bank statement would have been the best documentary evidence to show that the refund has been initiated. 
22. On the other hand the complainant has placed on record the statement of account of Mrs. Babli (mother of the complainant). Perusal of the same shows that an EMI of Rs.11,453/- has been debited on 5^th of every month from April 2022 to December 2022.
23. There is also one credit entry of Rs.96,528/- on 14/09/2022, which is the refund of the order placed. The said refund is after 6 months from the date of cancellation of the order by the complainant and that too after the institution of the instant complaint. Whereas OP in their e-mails and in even in para7, para8, para9 and para10 of their written statement has repeatedly stated that the amount had been refunded to the original source and present complaint is mis-use of law.
24. It is seen from the statement of account that even after the refund of amount mentioned above, three instalments of Rs.11,453/- have been deducted.  In all the complainant has paid Rs.1,03,077/-. It is due to the delay in refund the complainant had to pay Rs.6549/- as interest.  Even if assuming that OP had given an instant discount of Rs.6,500/- towards the interest, the said discount was for adjustment of the interest on EMI.  Once, the complainant has cancelled the order, OP should have immediately initiated the refund and intimated to the bank about cancellation of the EMI from the account of the complainant/his mother.
25. Since, the dispute between the complainant and OP is with respect to refund only, we don’t deem HDFC bank to be a necessary party in the present complaint.   
26. The complainant cannot be made to pay for something which he has not utilized. The OP has used/enjoyed the interest free money for 06 months, it is only after the issuance of notice in the present complaint, and the amount was refunded. The delay in refund despite assurance has caused financial and mental harassment to the complainant.  The act/omission on the part of OP amounts to deficiency in services for which complainant is entitled to compensation. 
27. Therefore, in the facts and circumstance of the present complaint and in the interest of justice we direct as follows:-

1. OP to pay Rs.4,344/- as interest calculated @ 9% p.a. on Rs.96,528/- from the date of cancelation of order i.e. 14/03/2022 to 13/09/2022.
2. Pay Rs.6,500/- paid by the complainant as interest to his bank.
3. Pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment.
4. The order be complied with in 30 days from the date of receipt of order. In case of non-compliance, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum on (a)+(b)+(c) from the date of order till realisation.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya)             Member	(Ashwani Kumar Mehta)             Member   (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)           President