Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 512.
Instituted on : 03.09.2021
Decided on : 07.02.2024
Kuldeep age 24 years, s/o Sh. Bijender Singh r/o H.No.1581/34, Sheetal Nagar, Rohtak..
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. 20th to 24th Floor, two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon Haryana-122202 through its Manager(Manufacturer of Samsung Mobile).
- B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Jain Mansion HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001, Haryana through its manager (Authorized service Centre of Samsung).
- Smart Store, Sonipat Road, Sheela Bye Pass, Rohtak-124001 through its Manager(Authorised seller).
…….Respondents/Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.SandeepHooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.KunalJuneja, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 & 3 already exparte.
ORDER
TRIPTI PANNU MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he had purchased a Samsung S20 Ultra Cosmic Graymobile phone from the opposite party No.3 for a sum of Rs.98000/- on dated 14.05.2020. Complainant had also purchased a plan of Samsung Care+Accidental Damage & Liquid damage Protection Plan on dated 14.05.2020 amounting to Rs.1999/-. The phone was not functioning properly from the very beginning as the battery of the phone was draining rapidly and even the heating issue while charging the phone was also from the very beginning. The said phone stopped functioning properly within warranty/guarantee period and the complainant visited the respondent no.2 i.e. service centre of Samsung on 13.04.2021 but they returned the same to the complainant and issued a job sheet in this regard. The officials of respondent no.2 informed the complainant that some of the defects cannot be repaired, as it is a manufacturing defect. But as per the commitment the respondents denied to replace the mobile phone with a new one. The act of opposite parties is illegal and they are liable for adopting unfair trade practice by supplying him with defective mobile product. As such there is a deficiency in sales and service on the part of the respondents. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that respondents may kindly be directed to return back Rs.98000/- as the price of the mobile phone alongwith interest @ 12% p.a., to pay Rs.21000/- on account of deficiency in service and harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to opposite party no.2& 3 through registered post received back with the report that the same were delivered but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 & 3 and as such opposite party No.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.10.2021 of this Commission. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant with regard to his complaint regarding the handset in question, approached to the opposite party on 13.04.2021 i.e. after using the unit for a period of approximate eleven months from purchase and reported battery issue with his unit. The engineer of the service center duly received the unit, created a job sheet no.4323163746 and thoroughly checked and found that the battery of the unit is required to be replaced. The engineer replaced the battery of the unit and the unit became absolutely fine and the complainant took the delivery of the unit to his full satisfaction. After that no issue has been reported by the complainant and now the answering respondent came to know about the present complaint. There is no manufacturing defect in the unit and the services have been provided to the complainant. No cause of action arises in favour of complainant and there is no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. As such opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4and closed his evidence on dated 04.11.2022. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on 07.04.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. In the present case complainant had purchased the phone on 14.05.2020 which is proved from the bill Ex.C1. As per the job sheet Ex.C2, the mobile in question was handed over to the service centre on 13.04.2021 for the defects: “battery using time quick discharge & heating issue” and the mobile in question was within warranty period. On the other hand as per the job sheet placed on record as Ex.R2, the battery was replaced. As per the opposite party No.1 they have handed over the mobile after replacement of battery to the complainant and thereafter there is no problem in the mobile in question. On the other hand as per document Ex.C4 at page no.2, there is a notification of device overheating on 5 June, which shows that after replacement of battery by the opposite party, heating issue was not resolved. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party no.1 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deducting the 30% depreciation on it, as the complainant has used the mobile uninterruptedly for 11 months i.e to pay Rs.68600/-(Rs.98000/- less Rs.29400/-).
6. 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.68600/-(Rupees sixty eight thousand and six hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.03.09.2021 till its realization, also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five 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 party No.1 at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.1.
7. 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:
07.02.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
