Haryana

Kaithal

CC/8/2022

Nitesh Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Pvt - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Anand Parkash Gupta

26 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.8/2022.

                                                     Date of institution: 14.01.2022.

                                                     Date of decision:26.07.2022.

Nitesh Gupta (Age 33 years) s/o Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta, r/o near Gurudwara, Sethan Mohalla, Kaithal, District Kaithal (136027).

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director; Registered Office at: 6^th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi (110001).
2. Unique Mobile Solutions (Authorized Service Centre of Samsung) through its Manager # 1057/11, Marwa Complex, Dhand Road, Kaithal (136027).
3. Savex Technologies Private Limited through its Owner/Manager # Khasra No.18/21, 19/25, 34/5, 6, 7/1 min, 14/2/2 min, 15/1 min, 27, 35/1, 7, 8, 9/1, 9/2, 10/1, 10/2, 11 min, 12, 13, 14 Village Jamalpur, Gurgaon, Haryana (122503).

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Indresh Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

                Respondents No. 2 & 3 exparte.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Nitesh Gupta-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased a mobile set of Samsung Galaxy M31 for an amount of Rs.14,999/- from the respondent No.3 vide invoice No.IN-DEL4-560094 dt. 19.01.2021.  It is alleged that from the very beginning, the above-said mobile set was not working properly and started giving problem in the color/pixels of the screen and some time, screen has been turned blue or there reflect a blue dot in the screen and mobile set generated the heating.  The complainant contacted the respondent No.1 and lodged a complaint for the above-said problem vide complaint No.1171276659 dt. 06.10.2021 and the respondent No.1 updated his mobile set but the above-said problem did not get resolved.  The complainant made several requests to the respondents either to repair the mobile set or to replace the same with the new one but the respondents did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondent No.1 appeared before this Commission, whereas respondents No.2 & 3 did not appear.  Respondent No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 24.02.2022 of this commission and respondent No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 18.04.2022 of this commission.  Respondent No.1 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the unit has been duly checked by the engineer of service-centre of answering respondent and same has been found liquid damaged (i.e. the mobile was found damaged due to contact with liquid/water) resulting in damage to the unit.  It is further stated that the engineer of service-centre told the complainant that the unit is out of warranty and the repair shall be on chargeable basis and an estimate of repair was provided accordingly but the complainant refused to pay the charges of repair.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C18 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Sh. Indresh Gupta, Adv. for the complainant has stated that the complainant purchased a mobile set of Samsung Galaxy M31 for an amount of Rs.14,999/- from the respondent No.3 vide invoice No.IN-DEL4-560094 dt. 19.01.2021.  It has been argued that from the very beginning, the above-said mobile set was not working properly and started giving problem in the color/pixels of the screen and some time, screen had been turned blue or there reflect a blue dot in the screen and mobile set generated the heating.  It has been further argued that the complainant contacted the respondent No.1 and lodged a complaint for the above-said problem vide complaint No.1171276659 dt. 06.10.2021 and the respondent No.1 updated his mobile set but the above-said problem did not get resolved.  The complainant made several requests to the respondents either to repair the mobile set or to replace the same with the new one but the respondents did not redress the grievances of complainant. 

7.             Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Adv. for the respondent No.1 has stated that although the said mobile set was in warranty period but it cannot be replaced as lots of water had entered near the volume key flex and returned.  He has further stated that in warranty period, liquid damage is not covered as per warranty card.

                Rebutting his arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has stated that there is no proof regarding the entrance of liquid near volume key flex because when he personally approached the service-centre of the Ops, they did not show this alleged aforesaid damage of liquid to the complainant and neither any videography was shown to him.  He has further stated that to avoid for giving replacement of the mobile set, or to replace the defective item in the mobile set, respondents have concocted the story of liquid damage.  However, no proof has been shown, only two photographs have been placed on record having some spots.  But it is not clarified that this is the liquid damage.  This is the photographs of liquid damage in the mobile set.  Reliance is placed on the authority given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharathi Knitting Vs. D.H.L. Worldwide 1996(4) SCC 704, in which it has been held that in case of specific term in the contract, the parties will be bound by the terms of the contract. 

8.             In the present case, the mobile set was within warranty period of one year as complainant Nitesh Gupta had purchased the mobile set in question on 19.01.2021.  The damage in the mobile set through liquid is not proved to the hilt by the respondents as respondents No.2 & 3 are also proceeded against exparte and respondent No.1 is represented through Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Adv.  Due to non-proving of the damage in the mobile set through the entrance of water is not proved cogently by the respondents.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted with the direction to respondents to replace the mobile set with the new one or to refund the amount of Rs.14,999/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  In default, penal interest of 9% p.a. shall be given by the respondents jointly and severally.

9.         In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:26.07.2022.    

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.