Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 574
Instituted on : 10.12.2020
Decided on : 06.12.2022
Aman aged-22 years, S/o Krishan Kumar R/o Village Rurki District & Tehsil Rohtak.
..............Complainant.
Vs.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. DLF Centre, Sansad Marg 6th Floor, New Delhi, 110001 India
- B2X Service Solution Pvt. Ltd. Huda Complex Rohtak-124001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Kunal Juneja, Advocate for the opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party no. 2 exparte.
ORDER
TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per complainant are that on 22.02.2020 he had purchased a Mobile Samsung Galaxy A51 bearing IMEI No.354464113176143 for a sum of Rs.23990/- vide Bill No.3668. The mobile was duly insured with Samsung Care Plus vide service contact number IND20C0784828341 which includes both accidental damage and liquid damage amounting to Rs.1099/-. It is further submitted that on 22.07.2020, suddenly the alleged handset got switched off. He approached the opposite party no. 2 and submitted his phone. They kept the mobile phone for two days and told him that he should resubmit his mobile phone after filing the insurance claim. Complainant filed a claim by paying Rs.599/- and on 01.08.2020, resubmitted his mobile phone to opposite party no. 2. But after 01.08.2020 opposite party no. 2 itself cancelled the request several times and kept submitting it again and lateron given the excuse that the same was cancelled by mistake. Thereafter on 31.08.2020 complainant got a call from opposite party no. 2 that they will be able to fix the problem only after filing the complaint again by the complainant. Complainant again made a complaint on 01.09.2020 and submitted his mobile phone to opposite party no.2 against a new job sheet number. On 09.09.2020 they handed over the mobile phone to complainant and then he noticed that all the parts of his phone were changed but the problem of speaker still existed in the mobile phone. Complainant told the same to the opposite party but the opposite party told that due to non-availability of parts they were unable to fix the problem and the same will be fixed later under warranty. After that he talked to Ms. Neha who also assured to resolved the same within warranty period and further said that the complainant will get a feedback call from the company and he has to give 9 or 10 marks for the feedback. Thereafter complainant repeatedly contacted the opposite party no. 2 and every time they told that the mobile phone will be repaired within warranty but every time it was returned unrepaired. The mobile in question remained with the service centre w.e.f. 22.07.2020 to 1011.2020 on different dates vide different job sheets. Due to non repair of mobile of the complainant, he could not attend his online classes and suffered a great loss in studies. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.23990/- as value of alleged mobile phone, to pay Rs. 1099/- i.e. insurance amount, Rs.599/- for submitting insurance claim and Rs.12,000/- on account of expenses incurred by him on repair of mobile and visiting the opposite party no. 2 many times, Rs.15,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties no. 1 in its reply has submitted that the services have been provided to complainant on every occasion and there is no defect found in the handset. In fact, the complainant, in regards to complaint regarding the handset in question, approached to the service center of answering company on following occasions i.e. on 22.07.2020 vide job sheet no. 4306434371, on 01.08.2020 vide call no. 430701352, on 05.08.2020 vide job sheet no. 4307263949, & on 01.09.2020 vide job sheet no. 4309071012 and reported HANDSET NOT TURNING ON problem in his handset. The engineer of the service center duly checked the handset and found that the handset is liquid damage. The service center told to complainant that the handset is out of warranty due to liquid damage and as the handset is protected under SAMSUNG CARE + PLAN ADAL PACK, and as per the terms and conditions of that protection plan, in the event of damage/liquid damage, it is required to inform through Samsung Care Web Portal or to Samsung authorized service center for detailing the defect and to submit any documentary evidence of the defect. As the handset was submitted to the service center by the complainant, the service center raised a request of service under Protection plan and accordingly, as per the term of the protection plan, Rs. 599/- paid by the complainant as processing fee under the protection plan the handset got repaired free of cost by replacement of LCD of the handset. The complainant took the delivery of the handset being fully satisfied. It is further submitted that the service has been provided to complainant without any undue delay as the said care plan is subject to some conditions and as per the conditions, there is a process of registering the handset with Servify to get the service/repair under the plan. There is no delay in services/repair, on part of the answering company as alleged by the complainant in his complaint. That after the handset delivered to complainant, the complainant again approached to the service center of the company on 10.11.2020 vide call no. 4313945321 and this time reported AUTO RESTART/POWER AUTO WORK & SPEAKER DISTORTION ISSUE in the handset. The engineer duly received the handset and checked thoroughly but no such defect was found and the handset was found in total working condition. On that complainant took the delivery of the handset being fully satisfied after signing the job sheet. Thereafter the complainant never submitted his handset with service center for any issue. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the party of insurance 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. Notice issued to opposite party no. 2 through registered post on 24.07.2021 not received back. As such, after expiry of statutory period of one month, opposite party no.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.09.2021 of this Commission.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainants in their evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and has closed his evidence on dated 16.11.2021. Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 to Ex. R12 and has closed his evidence on dated 10.05.2022.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present complaint it is not disputed that as per bill Ex.C2, the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 22.02.2020 alongwith the insurance plan Samsung Care+ Accidental damage & liquid damage protection plan as is proved from document Ex.C3 and the same was valid w.e.f. 27.03.2020 to 21.03.2021. As per service request Ex.C5 complainant contacted the opposite party on 22.07.2020, thereafter on 01.08.2020 Ex.C6, on 05.08.2020 Ex.C7, on 01.09.2020 Ex.C8, on 10.11.2020 Ex.C9 and every time the repair was cancelled by the opposite party. As per grievance detail Ex.C10, complainant has submitted that his mobile was repaired by the service center and they affixed the faulty speaker in the sound system which could not be removed by the opposite parties despite keeping the mobile phone with the service centre for two months. Complainant also made a mail dated 09.11.2020, which is enclosed with the details of complaints dated 22.07.2020 vide job sheet no. 4306434371, dated 01.08.2020 vide call no. 4307013521, dated 05.08.2020 vide job sheet no. 4307263949, dated 01.09.2020 vide job sheet no. 4309071012 and dated 10.11.2020 vide job sheet 4313945321. Complainant has also placed on record a CD –‘Annexure-A’ which reveals that the complainant repeatedly contacted the service centre and every time they assured to repair the mobile within warranty period. It is also revealed that opposite party only gave different dates to the complainant for settlement of his grievances and also asked the complainant to give best rating i.e.9-10 points. On the other hand as per mail Ex.C12, the opposite party denied to repair the mobile free of cost on the ground that: “In this case, the consumer has to bear the expenses to the repair as once the product is damaged or misused, Samsung cannot assure the equated performance of the same product”. But to prove the same that the mobile was damaged by the complainant himself or he misused the same, opposite party has not placed on record any evidence. As per Ex.R11 mobile in question has been shown as Liquid Damaged but on the other hand, as per cover note Ex.C3, the liquid damage is also covered under insurance.
7. From, the documents placed on record, it is observed that despite repeated complaints and requests of the complainant, mobile set of the complainant was not repaired by the opposite parties within warranty period and under insurance. Hence there is deficiency service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party No.1 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set in question after deducting the 15% depreciation on it as the complainant has used the mobile set uninterruptedly for 5 months i.e. to pay Rs.20391/-(Rs.23990/- less Rs.3599/-).
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.20391/-(Rupees twenty thousand three hundred and ninety one only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.10.12.2020 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.7000/-(Rupees seven thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.1
9. 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:
06.12.2022.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
