Delhi

East Delhi

CC/173/2020

MADHULIKA SRIVASTAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

15 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.173/2020

 

	Madhulika Srivastav D/o Late Sh. M.P. Srivastava R/o A-164, Surajmal Vihar, Delhi – 110092.	….Complainant
Versus
	Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector – 43, DLF Ph-V, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122202.	……OP

Date of Institution: 06.10.2020

Judgment Reserved on: 05.01.2023

Judgment Passed on: 15.02.2023

               

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

 

Order By: Shri Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

        The Complainant has filed complaint against OP alleging deficiency in service with regard to new mobile which she had purchased on 22^nd June, 2020.

        The Complainant has stated in the complaint that she had purchased ‘on line’ a new Mobile phone from her hard earned money directly from Samsung Company Website on the basis of brand value of Samsung company’s name. She purchased mobile Model Galaxy S-20 which is a premium model:

Date of Purchase      -       22 June 2020

Mode of Purchase            Online from Samsung Company site.

Delivery Date                   2 July, 2020

Cost                                 61,900/-

IMEI No.                           354460116521152

However, after receiving the Mobile she noticed that there was problem in Audio, Video and Camera in the phone i.e. if the head phone is removed during any video played, then sound of that media goes and when phone is restarted, then voice is audible back but the video recording button becomes disabled. Firstly she thought that it was multi-function phone and there may be some settings which need to be done but even after changing the settings the problem did not resolve and then she went to Authorized Service Centre of OP at Preet Vihar and in the Job Sheet the following was observed:

Samsung Service Centre Job Sheet Number: 4309252661

Date of Submit to Service Centre: 3^rd September, 2020

Under Warranty                       Yes

Problem Details - Spot on the screen from first day and also having Audio, Video and Camera Problem in phone.

At the Service Centre the Technician informed her that there is also big problem which is the black spot on the top on the screen, which she had not noticed earlier as it was very close to the front camera and was not easily visible and the same was there from the first day she bought this phone. Realizing that she had been sold such phone which has manufacturing fault she made several mails and also made calls many times to the OP’s Customer Care Centre to replace the phone or refund the money but they denied the same and finding no option she filed complaint before this Commission wherein she is seeking compensation of Rupees One Lakh considering the cost of the phone and time and energy which got wasted in all these process.

        Notice was issued to the OP and it has filed its Written Statement in which it has stated that OP is a globally renowned manufacturer of various type of Electronics house hold items like Mobile, LED TV etc. and these products are manufactured under stringent quality check and test trial is done before the actual start of commercial production. OP is well supported by the Service Centre, for after-sale service of their products which are manned by qualified and experienced personnel. The complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant has suppressed material facts and made baseless allegation of deficiency in service without any relevant documentary evidence. The Complainant had purchased one mobile handset bearing Serial No. RF8N30ZHDIJ, IMEI No. 354460116521152 ON 22.06.2020 form Samsung Official Website under employee discount for a total consideration of Rs.61,900/-(Inclusive all GST) in good and sealed packed condition. The product in question carries warranty for a period of one year and as per condition of warranty replacement of the product or refund is expressly excluded and warranty covers only repair or replacement of any part thereof which needs replacement on account of defective workmanship or defective component. Further in case of damage, the product can only be repaired on chargeable basis paid by the customer. The technician of OP had inspected the handset and found that there was no manufacturing defect in the said product and only ‘charging Jack and display’ was found to be defective and need replacement and even that was due to heavy usage/excess charging. This was informed to the Complainant however, she demanded replacement/refund of the product in question. On 21.09.2020 an e-mail was sent to the Complainant by OP and it was informed to her that after extensive diagnoses by the Technical Support Engineer it was found that there is no defect in the said product and replacement/refund was not possible. OP is still ready to resolve the issue as per the warranty hence there is no deficiency in service on their part. OP has further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in Sushila Automobiles Vs Dr. Birendra Narain & Ors wherein it is held that:

        ‘Opinion of an expert body in such cases would be an essential in put. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Commission in a number of cases has held that unless this onus is satisfactorily discharged by the Complainant, the liability of the manufacturer would be limited to removal of the defect and/or replacement of the parts’.

        Further Hon’ble Supreme Court in Stereocraft Vs Monotype India Ltd (2000) NCJ(SC)(59) has held that ‘when terms and warranty does not cover refund or replacement then customer cannot claim either replacement or refund during or after the lapse of warranty period. The customer can only claim repairing of the product if permissible under the terms of service of contract or warranty.’

        In Maruti Udhyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra, (2006) 4 SCC 644 at paragraphs 10 and 11 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that ‘where warranty condition is specifically stated, a contrary implied warranty cannot be imputed’.

        Complainant has filed rejoinder to the Written Statement of the OP denying the contents thereof and has reiterated her Complainant and has also stated that she had sent various e-mails and also called number of times at Customer Care Centre of the OP to replace or refund the money but she did not get any satisfactory reply. The phone was having defect of black spot from the day one of purchase which was not traceable, as the said black spot was of the same size of the camera on the top of the screen which she did not notice earlier it being very close to the front camera and she discovered it only when she visited Customer Care Center of the OP for other software issues which were related to audio and video and Technician at the Service Center told her about the spot. She has also stated that OP in its reply has mentioned that the Technician asked to replace ‘Charging Jack and Display’. The reason to change the Display was that there was black spot of the same size of the camera on the top on the screen and her hand set had audio/video issues from the beginning.

Complainant has filed her evidence by way of affidavit wherein she has enclosed

- Copy of acknowledgement of service request dated 03.09.2020

- Copy of Invoice dated 22.06.2020

- Copy of various e-mails she has sent to the OP.

        OP has filed their evidence by way of affidavit wherein it has enclosed:

        Copy of the invoice dated 22.06.2020 as Exhibit OPW-1/A.

• Copy of Terms and Conditions of Warranty as Exhibit OPW-1/B
• Copy of the job sheet dated 03.09.2020 as Exhibit OPW-1/C
• Copy of the email dated 21.09.2020 as Exhibit OPW-1/D

        This Commission has heard argument of both sides and perused the record.

        Complainant in her complaint has stated that based on the brand value and OP Company’s name she purchased Samsung S-20 Model handset on 22^nd June, 2020 which was delivered to her on 02^nd July, 2020 (IMEI No.354460116521152). She faced audio and video problem while using the mobile set and she approached Customer Service Centre of OP through her husband Shri Amit Srivastav on 03.09.2020 and after inspection the defect noticed was ‘H/F-connect time No sound in speaker and black spot on LCD upper side’. This is not disputed by the OP.

The stand of the OP is that both the sides are bound by the warranty Terms and Conditions and according to the same any defect in the product within the warranty period was only to be cured by way of repair and there is no policy of refund or replacement of the Company.

How the OP’s technician has arrived to the conclusion that the phone was being used heavily or it was being charged continuously. No condition has been placed on record to show that OP ever informed the complainant that she should not charge the phone continuously or heavily. What is the measurement of heavily or excessive charging is also no explained. The observation of the technician is not free from doubt.

It was a new handset and was delivered to the Complainant on 2^nd July, 2020 and the problem arose on 3^rd September, 2020 (just within 2 months). However, OP is in denial mode that there is any defect in their product whereas their own Technician has remarked that there is a need to replace ‘charging jack and display’ and the was on account of heavy usage/excess charging.

This rather establishes that there was defect in the phone when it has been purchased. Further the OP has not denied there was black spot on the screen of the phone display if was so what adverse effect it has whether such black spot has any reflection in audio/video system has not been mentioned/explained or why the defect was not informed by the OP to the complainant is also not explained. Admittedly, display screen has black spot on the display screen near as noticed camera by the technician of OP. This amounts to manufacturing defect. However, OP was only ready to repair the mobile set instead of replacing the same taking shelter under the Terms and Conditions of the Warranty (Exhibit OPW1/B).

Problem of replacement of Mobile Phone ‘Charging Jack’ as well as ‘Display’ within 2 months of purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defect and cannot be due to normal wear and tear. Further, the judgments quoted by the OP in their written statement are not para materia to the facts of this case as in the present case the OP themselves are admitting (Exhibits OPW-1/C) that there was defect in charging Jack and display in the said Mobile. No one purchases a new handset/phone anticipating that it would be have some defect, rather a new product is purchased anticipating that it would be free from all defect at least within the warrantee period. If the contention of the OP is accepted, then product one sold cannot be replaced and OP would continue to sell the old defected goods and if query is raised then they would take the shelter under the warrantee terms and condition, some time for one part and some time for another part. Such a condition amount to Unfair Trade Practice and cannot be allowed to be upheld.

        Keeping in view the reasons stated above the complainant is able to establish her case and this Commission holds OP liable for deficiency in service and directs as follows:

• OP shall pay Rs.61,900/- to the Complainant @ 6% per annum from 22^nd June, 2020 within 30 days from the date of this order and in case of failure OP shall be paying interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount till the date of realization and Complainant shall return the mobile phone (IMEI No. 354460116521152) to the Complainant simultaneously at the time of receiving payment.
• OP shall pay 10,000/- to the Complainant towards mental agony, harassment and legal expenses.

 

Announced on 15^th day of February, 2023.