Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 461.
Instituted on : 09.09.2019.
Decided on : 06.07.2022
Harsh Sharma aged-38years s/o Sh. Rajkumar Sharma r/o H.no. 647/29, Tilak Nagar Rohtak, 124001 Mobile No.-9896222420
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Samsung Mobile India, c/o 6th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001(Corporate Identification Number (CIN):U31900DL1995PTC071387)
- AUTHORIZED SERVICE CENTER, B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Jain Mansion Huda Complex, Near Old Gymkhana Club Rohtak,124001.
- Shree Ganesh Communication, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Opp. Peer Baba Dargah Rohtak.
……….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: Sh. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Opposite parties No. 2 and 3 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the present complaint, as per the complainant are that the complainant had purchased a Samsung Mobile phone, Model No. Sam A-20, IMEI No. 356926100543715 from opposite party no. 3 for a consideration of Rs.12490/- on 28.04.2019 with one year warranty. The said mobile started creating problem just after 4 months of the purchase. Some small patches appeared on the screen and that small patches increased day by day and covered the screen of mobile. Due to that, complainant is unable to make calls and to use other functions of the mobile phone. The complainant contacted the opposite party no. 2 on 16.08.2019 and deposited the mobile phone in service center and opposite party no. 2 firstly asked the complainant to collect the phone at 4:00PM on the same day but latereon when the complainant approached to opposite party no. 2 for collection of set, he was asked to pay the cost of new screen. The complainant objected the same and told the opposite party no. 2 that phone was under warranty period but the opposite party no. 2 refused to repair the phone without payment by the complainant despite his repeated requests. The complainant send e-mail to opposite party no. 1 and compliant ID No. 4288691292 was provided to the complainant. But despite his repeated requests, mobile was not repaired and every time the concerned officials lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. There is clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund of the cost of the mobile set i.e. Rs.12490/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum with compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that company provides one year warranty on the unit. 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 and the warranty of the unit is subject to some conditions. The complainant has concocted a false story just only to grab illegal benefits of his own wrong. It is further submitted that on 16.08.2019 vide call no. 4288691292 complainant approached to the service center of the answering company and reported BLACK SPOT ON DISPLAY problem in his unit. The engineer duly received the unit and issued a job sheet and checked the unit and it is found that the display of the unit is damaged due to IMPACK DAMAGE. The engineer told to complainant that the unit is out of warranty due to DAMAGE and repair shall be on chargeable basis and an estimate of repair was provided to complainant. But the complainant refused to pay the charges of repair and without any cause started demanding replacement/refund for his unit. It is further submitted that the answering company is ready to provide services to complainant as per warranty policy i.e. paid repair, but the complainant is not ready to get his unit repaired. 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. However, notice sent to opposite party no. 2 and 3 received back served but none has appeared on their behalf. As such opposite party no. 2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.11.2019 of this Commission.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex. CW-1/A, documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence on dated 04.10.2021. Ld. Counsel for opposite party no.1 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and Ex. RW-2/A, document Ex.R-1 to Ex. R-5 and closed his evidence on dated 01.02.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case it is not disputed that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone for Rs.12490/- on dated 28.04.2019 as is proved from the bill Ex.C1. As per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 16.08.2019, the mobile repair request was cancelled by ACS. As per email Ex.C3 dated 25.08.2019, the opposite party refused to repair the mobile under warranty on the ground that the mobile in question was physical damage. As per the email dated 28.08.2019, complainant has submitted that in fact mobile in question was not physically damaged and further submitted that after purchasing of mobile phone, some small patches appeared on screen and after some time it increased and covered the full screen. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 has placed on record affidavit Ex.RW2/A of one official of service centre namely Pawan and photographs of damaged mobile Ex.R4 and Ex.R5. But from these documents it is not proved that the mobile was physical damage. As the defect in the mobile in question appeared just within 4 months, hence the same should have been repaired by the opposite parties free of cost within warranty period but the opposite parties demanded repair cost from the complainant on the ground of physical damage(which is not proved). Hence 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 after deducting the 25% amount as depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.12490/- less 25% = 9367.50/- say Rs.9368/-(rounded off).
6. 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.9368/-(Rupees nine thousand three hundred and sixty eight only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 09.09.2019 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well 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 the payment by the opposite party.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
06.07.2022
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Shyam Lal, Member
