Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 387.
Instituted on : 09.08.2019.
Decided on : 21.04.2022.
Satish Saini age 42 years, s/o Kishan Chand R/o House No.1324/21, Gali No.9L. Hafed Road, Prem Nagar, Rohtak, Haryana-124001.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Office Address: 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V Gurgaon, Haryana-122202.
- B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., (Samsung Authorized Service Centre) Address: Jain Mansion, Huda Complex, Near Old Gymkhana Club Rohtak, Haryana-124001.
- Amazon India Office Address: 2nd Floor, Safina towers, Opp. JP Techno Park, No.3 Ali Asker Road, Bangalore-560 052.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Sandeep Raj, Advocate for opposite party no.3
Opposite party No.2 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a mobile phone of respondent no.1 company from respondent no.3 having model no.M20 serial no.RZ8M510LMQY having IMEI No.356131100241440 on 07.06.2019 for a sum of Rs.11990/-. But after one month of its purchase, the complainant started facing problems with the display of the alleged phone. On 10.07.2015 the complainant showed his mobile phone to the respondent no.2 who is the authorized service centre of respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 stated that the product received by the complainant was defective and required a display replacement. Respondent no.2 replaced the display of alleged mobile phone free of cost admitting the fact that the complainant received a defective product. But after 2-3 days of replacement of the display, the complainant again faced problem having black dot on the display of the phone as the respondent no.2 instead of replacing the display with a genuine display, replaced it with a sub-standard display. Complainant requested the opposite party no.2 several times to replace the display being manufacturing defect in the same but any heed was not paid to her requests. On 05.08.2019, the complainant got his mobile phone display changed by paying a sum of Rs.4442/- and paid the said amount in cash. The act and conduct of the 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 of the complainant with a new one, to refund the amount of Rs.4442/- and to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and harassment caused to the complainant and also to pass any other order or relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the complainant and against the respondents.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party no.2 received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. As such opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.09.2019 of this Commission. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that complainant has not approached to the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has hidden true facts hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The complaint of the complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product. It is pertinent to mention here that alleged defect cannot be determined on the simpliciter submissions of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. It is further submitted that the answering opposite party or the representative never told the complainant that the unit is question is a defective one. In fact the complainant has made false allegations without any proof of document just to grab the illegal benefits from the respondent company. The answering opposite party provides one year warranty for the unit and warranty covers only the defects in product arising out of manufacturing or faulty workmanship and not covers the defect due to other conditions i.e. if the unit got damaged, warranty becomes void(mentioned in warranty policy). In the present case, alleged unit has got damaged due to mishandling on the part of complainant and as per conditions of warranty, the warranty of the unit has got barred and the repair of the unit has attracted charges. In fact, the complainant in regard to complaint regarding the unit in question, approached to the service centre on 10.07.2019 and reported ‘DISPLAY NOT SHOW’ problem in his unit. The engineer of the service center duly received the unit and issued a job sheet of ‘in warranty’ as per the date of purchase. After that, the engineer checked the unit and found that the LCD of the unit needs replacement. The engineer changed the LCD and the unit became completely O.K. and the complainant took the delivery of the unit to his full satisfaction. Again on 05.08.2019 the complainant approached the service centre and reported ‘LCD DAMAGE’ problem in his unit. The engineer told the complainant that the unit is out of warranty due to ‘PHYSICAL DAMAGE CASE’ and an estimate of repair of Rs.4500/- alongwith inspection charges of Rs.177/- was provided to the complainant. Complainant agreed for the same and the engineer changed the LCD of the unit and complainant took the delivery of the unit to his full satisfaction. The complainant is trying to make a false story just only to grab illegal benefits from the answering opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that answering respondent/ASSPL operates an e-commerce marketplace where independent third party sellers have listed their products for sale. ASSPL is neither responsible for the products that are listed on the website by various third party sellers, nor does ASSPL intervene or influence ay customers in any manner.. It is further submitted that ASSPL had no role in the entire transaction undertaken between the complainant and the Independent Third Party Seller and hence, ASSPL cannot be held liable for providing the facility of replacement/refund with respect to the product, which was sold to the complainant by the Independent Third Party Seller. The product in question is neither manufactured nor sold by the opposite party no.3 and therefore there arise no question of any action under the realms of the Act against the opposite party no.3.. 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.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence on dated 04.11.2020. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on dated 22.10.2021. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.3 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, documents Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on dated 04.12.2020.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. As per the bill Ex.C1, complainant had purchased the mobile phone on 07.06.2019 and as per job sheet Ex.C4 dated 10.07.2019 there was “Display problem” in the alleged mobile phone and the same was within warranty as shown by the service centre. But there is no repair description in the alleged job sheet. Thereafter as per job sheet Ex.C3 dated 05.08.2019 there was defect of LCD damage and the service centre shown the warranty status as “Out of warranty”. Service centre also gave an estimate of repair of Rs.4500/- for LCD charges and Rs.177/- for inspection charges. Hence they treated the unit as out of warranty and advised the complainant to repair the unit on paid basis.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the mobile in question become defective just within month of its purchase. Hence the same was within warranty period but the opposite party treated the same as out of warranty due to ‘physical damage case’. But to prove the same opposite party has not placed on record any document. The complainant has to get repaired his mobile phone by paying Rs.4442/- which is proved from the Tax Invoice Ex.C1. As per the complainant, the mobile in question is still not working properly which shows that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile in question. We have also observed that opposite parties have placed on record two job sheets Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. In both the job sheets in the column of repair description “nothing has been mentioned by the Engineer who checked the mobile phone on the respective dates i.e. 10.07.2019 and 05.08.2019”. Moreover the perusal of this job sheet shows that one Naushad Khan engineer checked the mobile and do the needful at that time but the respondent no.1 has placed on record affidavit of one Sh. Pawan Kumar who has not inspected the mobile phone. As such there is deficiency in 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 i.e. Rs.11990/- plus repair charges of Rs.4442/- total Rs.16432/-.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 being manufacturer of the product to pay a sum of Rs.16432/-(Rupees sixteen thousand four hundred and thirty two only) and also to pay 5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party no.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the alleged amount of Rs.16432/- from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.09.08.2019 till its realization to the complainant.. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite party No.1 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:
21.04.2022.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Shyam Lal, Member
