Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 443.
Instituted on : 12.10.2020
Decided on : 29.02.2024
Rajbala age 38 years w/o Sh. Ashwani Phougat, R/o H.No.134/22, Dev colony, Distt. Rohotak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Durga Enterprises, 1333/30, Vijay Nagar,. Medicine Market, Rohtak.
- Samsung Service Center B12X service Splution IPndia Pvt. Ltd. Jain Mansion, Huda Complex, Rohtak.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 20th to 24th Floor, two Horizon Centre, golf course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon Haryana-122205.
…….Respondents/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.Ashwani Phougat, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
Opposite party No.1 & 2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that she had purchased a Samsung A7 mobile phone from the opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.21990/- on dated 05.01.2019. In the month of February the above said mobile phone started creating problems i.e. hanging problem, Abnormal battery indicator, system freeze on standby, network drop in both sim. The complainant approached to respondent no.2 many times and deposited his mobile phone for repairing and the same was returned to the complainant after few days of its repairing. But after some days again the said mobile phone starting creating problem like system freeze on standby, Auto power off problems. So in the month of November the complainant approached the respondent no.2 and deposited the handset for repairing and same was returned to complainant after repairing and by updating software. But again mobile phone started creating abnormal battery indicator, hanging problem system freeze on standby. In the month of December on dated 19.12.2019 the above said mobile started creating problem i.e. hanging problem, abnormal battery indicator. The complainant approached to respondent no.2 and deposited his mobile for repairing and the same was returned to the complainant after repairing. But after some days again the mobile phone starting creating problem like system freeze on standby, auto power off problem. But the same was returned to complainant after repairing and taking charges for repairing. But the mobile phone started creating the same problems. The above said mobile is within warranty period and the opposite parties are legally bound to replace the same but they are unnecessarily harassing the complainant. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. 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.21990/- and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental tension and deficiency in service 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 through Process-server of this Commission received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 and as such opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated, 22.12.2020 of this Commission. Opposite party no.1 also did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.02.2022 of this Commission. Opposite party No. 3 in its reply has submitted that the complainant with regard to his complaint regarding the handset in question, approached to the opposite party on 19.12.2019 vide job sheet no.4296569808 i.e. after a period of approximate 11 months from the date of purchase. The averments of complaint regarding reporting of alleged defect by complainant in the month of February and November are totally wrong and denied. In fact, as per the records of company, the complainant never reported any complaint regarding his handset prior to date 19.12.2019 and on that occasion, the complainant reported ‘HANGING’ problem in his handset and requested for software update in his handset. The engineer of the service centre duly checked the handset and found that display/touch of the handset is broken. The engineer told to complainant that the handset is out of warranty due to physical damage and the repair/software update shall be on chargeable basis. But the complainant only agreed for software update in his handset and accordingly only the software of handset got updated as per warranty conditions. Complainant took the delivery of handset being fully satisfied with the services. After that no problem has been reported by the complainant in regard to his handset. It is also submitted that the company provides one year warranty on the handset and 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 warranty of the handset is subject to some conditions and the warranty of the handset becomes void in the following conditions: Liquid logged/water logging, Physically damage, serial no. missing, tampering, mishandling/burnt etc. It is submitted that the opposite party, has provided services to complainant and the opposite party was and is always ready to provide services as per warranty policy. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and 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.CW1 to Ex.CW4 and closed his evidence on dated 11.05.2022. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.3 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on 19.01.2023.
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 05.01.2019 which is proved from the bill Ex.C1. Only one job sheet dated 19.12.2019 Ex.CW2 has been placed on record by the complainant. The first complaint was made for some defects in the mobile but no such record is placed on record. Neither any claim number nor complaint no. has mentioned in para no.2 of the complaint. As per para no.3 of the complaint, complainant has alleged that he approached the opposite party no.2 on 19.12.2022 and deposited his mobile set for some problems, which was returned to the complainant after repairing but after sometime the problems again appeared in the said mobile. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. Ex.CW2 and Ex.CW3 both documents are 19.12.2019. As per Ex.CW2 and Ex.CW3, touch of the mobile phone was broken and service centre charged Rs.180/- for the inspection of the mobile phone and after inspection it was found that there is a damage in the touch of the mobile phone due to physical damage. The mobile phone become out of warranty. The grievance of the complainant is that there were defects such as hanging problem, abnormal battery indicator etc. but the same problem has not been described by the complainant before the technical person of the service centre. The mobile phone was out of warranty due to physical damage in the same. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. 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:
29.02.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
