Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 304
Instituted on : 19.08.2020
Decided on : 13.06.2023
Mahabir Singh aged-56 years S/o Man Singh R/o H.No.319/9, Jasbir Colony, Rohtak.
……….………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Samsung Smart Plaza, Sonepat Road, Sheela Bye-Pass, Near Maharaja Hotel, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- Samsung Customer Care, Near HUDA Complex, Rohtak through its Proprietor/Manager.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF Phase-V, Gurgaon through its Manager/Director.
..…….……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Mohit Kapoor, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No. 3.
Opposite party no. 1 and 2 already exparte.
ORDER
VIJENDER SINGH MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that on 07.05.2019, he purchased a mobile phone Samsung A-50 vide bill no. SC909 dated 07.05.2019 amounting to Rs.19,990/- from opposite party no.1 with one year warranty. In the month of March, 2020 some defects occurred in the mobile. But due to lockdown he could not deposit his handset to service center. During this period the officials of the opposite parties have extended the warranty of their product for 3 months. In the month of May 2020, the complainant approached to the opposite party no.2 various times, but they told that spare parts of phone are not in stock and they will repair the phone after some days. But on 10.08.2020, the officials of the opposite party no. 2 told that mother board of phone is faulty and asked the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.8200/- as the phone is out of warranty. Complainant told them that due to lockdown, he could not deposit the handset to them and company has extended the warranty of mobiles for three months, so his mobile is within warranty period. But the officials of the opposite parties refused to repair the mobile. Complainant requested the opposite parties to return the cost of the mobile, but the same was refused by the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties are illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of his mobile phone i.e. Rs.19,990/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase of mobile till the date of actual realization and the opposite parties may also be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 3 appeared and submitted its reply that they provided one year warranty on the handset, warranty means in case of any problem with the handset, the handset will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per warranty policy and the warranty of the handset is subject to some conditions. The complainant approached to the service center of opposite party on 30.06.2020 vide job sheet no. 4305098787 for the first and last time and reported No Network & Emergency Call problem in his handset. The engineer of the service center duly received the handset and checked, but no such defect was found in the handset and the handset was found in total working condition. The engineer told the complainant that the handset is having no defect and is working fine, but the complainant without any cause, started demanding replacement for his handset. After that no problem has been reported by the complainant in regard to his handset. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and he prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. Notice to opposite parties no. 1 and 2 were duly served through Process Server of this Commission but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2. As such, opposite party no. 1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.11.2020 of this Commission.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex. CW1/A & Ex. CW2/A, documents Ex.CW2/B to Ex. CW2/C and closed the evidence on dated 26.07.2022. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex. R1 and close his evidence vide separate statement dated 27.09.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case it is not disputed that as per service order detail Ex.CW2/B, complainant had approached the service centre of the opposite party for the ‘Network problem’ in the mobile in question. As per Ex.CW2/C also, defect is shown as ‘Network drop’. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the problem was not resolved by the opposite parties and the service centre told the complainant that motherboard of the mobile phone was faulty and they demanded Rs.8200/- from the complainant for removing the alleged defect on the ground that the mobile in question was out of warranty. In this regard, it is observed that complainant had purchased the mobile on dated 07.05.2019 and the defects in the mobile phone occurred in the month of March 2020. Due to lockdown in the country w.e.f. 05.03.2020, the mobile could not be got repaired from the opposite parties. Thereafter he contacted the opposite parties on 05.05.2020 i.e. within warranty period, which is proved from the job sheet Ex.CW2/B. Hence the opposite party was liable to repair the same free of cost but the same has not been repaired by the opposite parties. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party no.3 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deducting the 35% depreciation on it, as the mobile set was used by the complainant uninterruptedly for 10 months i.e. to pay Rs.12935/-(19900/- less Rs.6965/-) to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.3 to refund the amount of Rs.12935/-(Rupee twelve thousand nine hundred and thirty five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.08.2020 till its realization and also to 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.3 at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.3.
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:
13.06.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
