BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.182 of 2020.
Date of institution: 01.07.2020.
Date of decision:02.05.2022.
Deepak Bhalla @ Maney aged 31 years son of Sh. Bharat Bhushan, resident of near Manji Sahib Gurudwara, Sethan Mohalla, Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Goyal Mobile Services C/o Shop No.58, Navdeep Market, Pehowa Distt. Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor Sh. Lucky Goyal, S/o Sh. Parmod Kumar Goyal, Mobile No.98967-68988.
- Infinity, Samsung Care Centre C/o Pawan Market, Pehowa through its Manager/Proprietor Sh. Rahul, Mobile No.98148-53302.
- Unique Mobile Solutions i.e. Samsung Care Centre C/o 1057/11, Marwa Complex, Kurukshetra Road, Kaithal through its Manager/Proprietor Sh. Ashwani, Mobile No.95410-13000.
- Vandana Communication i.e. Samsung Care Centre, C/o Plot No.3, Ground Floor, Raj Market, Kurukshetra through its Manager/Proprietor Sh. Ritesh, Mobile No.90506-66655.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., C/o 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurugram, Haryana-122202 through its Managing Director, Phone No.0124-4881234.
….Respondents.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
CORAM: DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.
SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Anil Chutani, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent No.5.
Respondents No.1 to 4 exparte.
ORDER
DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT
Deepak Bhalla-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.
In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased a mobile handset make Samsung Note-10 Plus for a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the respondent No.1 vide invoice No.55 dt. 23.01.2020 which was issued in the nick name Maney of complainant. It is alleged that after purchasing the mobile handset, a continuous problem in the charger as-well-as data cable was accrued upon which he approached the respondent No.2 i.e. authorized service-centre of Samsung Care vide job-sheet dt. 03.03.2020 where the defective data cable as-well-as charger were replaced. Thereafter the complainant went to abroad on 06.03.2020 at Ukrain (Europe) where the complainant faced a lot of problem while dealing with the mobile handset as the same itself got switched off despite of having sufficient battery back-up which ruined the whole trip of complainant. After returning back to India, due to pandemic disease in whole world, the complainant alongwith his whole family was quarantine by the Administration and thereafter, due to lock down in India, the complainant could not approach the respondents against his grievances. The complainant duly approached the respondent No.3 where after due checking, a continuous fault of draining of battery as-well-as swollen of battery and further the officials concerned themselves admitted a strong apprehension of blast of battery upon which the said mobile handset was retained by them against job-sheet dt. 06.06.2020 but the defects were not removed from the said mobile set. Thereafter, the complainant again approached the respondent No.4 who after inspecting the mobile set found the above-said problems of draining of battery, switched off the mobile handset despite of having sufficient battery back-up, S-PEN not working properly and then got deposited the mobile set which is still with the respondent No.4 and now they have asked that a new mother board has to be changed in the mobile set. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
2. Upon notice, the respondent No.5 appeared before this Commission, whereas respondents No.1 to 4 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 18.01.2021 of this commission. Respondent No.5 contested the complaint by filing their written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as the mobile set has been purchased by Maney Chunni; that the complainant approached the answering respondent on 03.03.2020 and the engineer of service-centre duly checked and found that the ADAPTOR & DATA CABLE of the product needs replacement. The product was found to be completely O.K. and only accessories i.e. ADAPTOR & DATA CABLE were found to be defective and accordingly, the same got replaced and the product started working fine; similarly, the complainant approached the answering respondent on 06.06.2020 and 15.06.2020 but there was no defect in the mobile handset and only the ADAPTOR of the product which is the external part of product needs replacement but the complainant with his ill will, refused to take the delivery of product and started demanding replacement for his product; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW3/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C37 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R9 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of respondent No.5.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and ld. counsel for the respondent No.5 and perused the record carefully.
6. Sh. Anil Chutani, Adv. for the complainant has stated that the complainant purchased a mobile handset make Samsung Note-10 Plus for a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the respondent No.1 vide invoice No.55 dt. 23.01.2020 which was issued in the nick name Maney of complainant. It has been argued that after purchasing the mobile handset, a continuous problem in the charger as-well-as data cable was accrued upon which he approached the respondent No.2 i.e. authorized service-centre of Samsung Care vide job-sheet dt. 03.03.2020 where the defective data cable as-well-as charger were replaced. It has been further argued that the complainant went to abroad on 06.03.2020 at Ukrain (Europe) where the complainant faced a lot of problem while dealing with the mobile handset as the same itself got switched off despite of having sufficient battery back-up which ruined the whole trip of complainant. It has been further argued that the complainant duly approached the respondent No.3 where after due checking, a continuous fault of draining of battery as-well-as swollen of battery and further the officials concerned themselves admitted a strong apprehension of blast of battery upon which the said mobile handset was retained by them against job-sheet dt. 06.06.2020 but the defects were not removed. It has been further argued that the officials of respondent No.3 requested the complainant to take back his mobile handset with the assurance in case if the said problems/defects in the mobile handset continue, then they will replace his mobile handset with a new one with extended warranty. It has been further argued that there was defect in the battery and cable in the mobile set which remained defective for a long time. Ld. counsel for the complainant further argued that the mobile set was purchased on 23.01.2020. The complainant-consumer complained about the defective mobile set to the respondents, who extended the warranty period of three months without taking further cost. Meaning thereby, the respondents accepted the contention that there was defect in the mobile set which was costing Rs.80,000/- of the mobile handset make Samsung.
7. Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Adv. for the respondent No.5 has taken the objection that in the bill, the name of purchaser is written as Maney Chunni. Hence, Deepak Bhalla has no occasion to complaint about the mobile set. In the title of complaint, it is the name of complainant written as Deepak Bhalla @ Maney and Maney is nick name of complainant. Hence, this objection raised by ld. counsel for respondent No.5 is over-ruled. The mobile set was handed over to the respondents three times but the mobile set was never problem free and is still lying with the respondents.
8. Since the mobile set is defective having one defect or the other and is costing very high i.e. Rs.80,000/- and the same is not in working condition. Hence, respondents are hereby directed to replace the defective mobile handset with the new one with complete extended warranty within 45 days from today. Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly. No order as to costs.
9. In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:02.05.2022.
(Dr. Neelima Shangla)
President.
(Rajbir Singh), (Suman Rana),
Member. Member.
Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.
