Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/561/2019

Rajesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon Development Center India Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

28 May 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	561/2019
Date of Institution	:	21.06.2019
Date of Decision	:	28.05.2020

 

                                       

                       

 

Rajesh Kumar s/o Sh.Nanak Chand r/o H.No.711/30, Sector 26, Chandigarh

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. Amazon Development Center India Pvt. Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Safina Towers, Opposite to J.P.Techno Park No.3, Ali Asker Road, Bangalore-560052 through its M.D. /Authorized Signatory.
2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20^th 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Gold Course Road, Sector 43, DLF, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana 122202 through its M.D. /Authorized Signatory.
3. Samsung Service Centre, Plot No.182/28, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
		SHRI RAJAN DEWAN,	PRESIDENT
		SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Complainant in person.
	Sh.Dixit Garg, Advocate for OP No.1 Sh.Simranjit Singh, Adv. for OP No.2 OP No.3 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case as alleged in the complaint are that  the complainant purchased a mobile phone make Samsung M20 through online shopping postal of OP No.1 vide Invoice dated 08.02.2019 for Rs.11,089/-. After few days of its purchase, it started creating network problem and as such he approached OP No.3 who updated the software. Thereafter he went to Delhi-Faridabad-Alwar (Rajasthan) w.e.f. 27.02.2019 to 04.03.2019 to attend the family function where he had to face a lot of problems on account of network issue.  On reaching Chandigarh, he approached OP No.3 who returned the mobile phone after updating its software. The same alleged to have functioned properly for 10-12 days and thereafter it again started giving the same problem and he again requested OP No.3 to check it. After inspection, the Engineer of OP No.3 told that the problem of network issue was due to root and thus again formatted/reset the mobile phone.  It has further been averred that the problem of network issue again cropped up after 14-15 days and he approached OP No.3 against job sheet dated 05.04.2019 to replace the mobile phone as the same was under warranty and was giving the problem since day of its beginning but they refused to do so. Therefore, he made a complaint to Samsung Head Office vide e-mail dated 09.05.2019 and in reply, he was assured that the OP-Team would shortly get in touch with him for further discussion.  On 10.05.2019, a call was received from Ms.Samiya, Senior Samsung Customer Care Officer who assured the complainant that she would check the mobile phone properly from an expert technician but that assurance did not see the light of the day as nothing was done to redress the complaint.  It has further been averred that on 13.05.2019 & 15.05.2019, the said Ms.Samiya again informed that it was not possible for her to replace the mobile phone and asked him to collect the repaired mobile phone. Finally, he got served a legal notice dated 20.05.2019 through speed post upon the OPs but to no effect.  He requested the OPs many times to replace the mobile phone as the same was under warranty and giving problem soon after its purchase but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.       
2.         In its written statement, OP No.1 has stated that it provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers list their products for sale and therefore, the sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. It has further been stated that the contract of sale of products on the website is strictly a bipartite contract between the customer and the seller. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         In its written statement, OP No.2 has stated that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and had he approached the Service Center rightfully with correct facts, prompt service would have been provided to him but rather than doing so he had filed the present complaint. It has further been stated that the complainant approached the service center only once with a network drop issue in the mobile handset which was resolved by updating the software.  It has further been stated that the complainant was requested many times to take back the  mobile phone but he completed refused to do so and is adamant to replace it with a new one.  It has further been stated that there is no defect in the mobile phone and no expert evidence has been placed on record by the complainant to prove the defect.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         Despite due service through registered post, OP No.3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.10.2019.
5.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of OP No.2 controverting its stand and reiterating the averments as made in the complaint.  It has further been reiterated that he approached OP No.3 in February, March, April and May, 2019 but they had failed to issue the job sheet on each visit. It has been stated that OP No.2 is well aware that the mobile phone is having manufacturing defect still they were not ready to resolve the issue.  It has further been stated that the complaint is liable to be allowed with costs.
6.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 and have gone through the documents on record.
7.         In his evidence, the complainant has filed his detailed affidavit and placed on record the copy of the Invoice dated  07.02.2019 (Annexure C-1) vide which he purchased the mobile phone in question. Besides this, he had also placed on record a job sheet (Annexure C–II) vide which he raised the issue of network drop issue with OP No.3.  He has also placed on record the copies of the e-mails (Annexure C-III to C-V) vide which he requested the Service Head of the Samsung Company to resolve the issue of the network in the mobile phone or to replace the same with a new one. He has specifically deposed in his affidavit that the mobile phone in question was giving the network problem again and again and OP Nos.2 & 3 have  failed to resolve the issue.
8.         It is apt to mention here that during the pendency of the complaint, OP No.2 has handed over the mobile phone in question to the complainant and he was directed to report as to whether the same is running properly or not.  Subsequently, the complainant moved an application dated 03.03.2020 stating therein that the mobile phone in question is still suffering from the defects/problems as alleged in the complaint, owing to inherent manufacturing defects therein. It was also stated in the application that he took the aforesaid mobile handset to Samsung Authorized Service Center on 14.02.2020 with the reported fault of “some time hand & display white shoe (S/W update) and thereby incurred an amount of Rs.236/- vide invoice dated 14.02.2020 for getting the handset repaired.   He has further stated in the application that even after the aforesaid repairs, there is no improvement in the functioning of the handset in question.
9.         Needless to mention here that the complainant had already given a long hand to the OPs to replace/repair the mobile phone, in question, but to no effect. The complainant had spent Rs.11,089/- from his pocket to purchase the mobile phone in question having faith in the brand to facilitate himself and not for moving the OPs and then to this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by them. 
10.         We, thus, deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case that no useful purpose would be served by directing the OPs to repair/replace the product in question because the mobile phone started giving problem of network issue soon after its purchase and as such the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product. If the repaired/replaced product develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another round of litigation which will be highly torturous for him. 
11.         In view of the above, we allow the complaint with a direction to the OPs to refund Rs.11,089/- i.e. the price of the mobile phone in question to the complainant with a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/-. This order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on the awarded amounts from the date of this order till its realization.
12.         The complainant is directed to return the device along with its accessories to the OPs after receipt of the awarded amounts.
13.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced 28/05/2020	Sd/-
	(RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER