Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 184.
Instituted on : 26.05.2020
Decided on : 08.08.2022
Mayank Saini s/o Sh. Surender Kumar H.No.31/17, Udhmipura, Jhajjar Road, Rohtak, Haryana-124001.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon.
- Savex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.90, Sector-18, Gurugram, Haryana-122001.
- B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Jain Mansion HUDA Complex, Near Old Gymkhana Club Rohtak-Haryana-124001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Cmplainant in person.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Kailash Singh opposite party No. 2 in person..
Opposite party no. 3 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per complainant are that he had purchased a Smart mobile phone of Samsung Company, Model Samsung for a sum of Rs.13999/- on dated 24.11.2019 with one year warranty from the date of purchase. But just after 6 months of purchase, speaker of mobile phone has been out of order and the service centre is demanding Rs.2500/- for repair of the same whereas the mobile in question is within warranty period. The act of opposite parties 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 and also to pay compensation of Rs.10000/- as well as Rs.5000/- as 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, which shows that there is no problem in the product and present complaint has been filed just to grab benefits illegally from the answering opposite party. In fact the complainant never visited to any service center of answering company for any issue in his product. 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 service on the party of answering opposite party. 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. Opposite party No.2 is not authorized to provide any type of repairs or after sale service. All the parts present within the said mobile phone are being produced and manufactured by the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party no.3 are the authorized after sales service providers. The answering opposite party no.2 in no manner concerned or involved with the manufacturing of the speaker of the mobile which is out of order. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and answering opposite party no.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, opposite party No.3 did not appear despite service of notice to him through Process-Server of this Commission. As such opposite party No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.07.2020 of this Commission.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence on dated 15.012.2021. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and documents Ex.R-1 and closed his evidence on dated 20.07.2022. Opposite party no. 2 has tendered affidavit RW-2/A and closed his evidence on 15.12.2021.
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.C4 dated 24.11.2019 for a sum of Rs.13999/-. The grievance of the complainant is that the speaker of the mobile phone became defective within six months of its purchase but the opposite party no.3 demanded Rs.2500/- for the same from the complainant whereas the mobile in question was within warranty period. To prove the same complainant has placed on record copies of emails Ex.C2 & Ex.C3, whereby complainant has submitted that the service centre is demanding Rs.2500/- for resolving the defect of speaker whereas the mobile in question was within warranty period. 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 30% depreciation on it (Rs.13999/- less 30% i.e. Rs.9800/-).
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.9800/-(Rupees nine thousand and eight hundred only) and to pay Rs.4000/-(Rupees four 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 No.1.
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:
08.08.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
