Complainant Sanjeev K Sharma through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the opposite parties to refund the money i.e. Rs.18,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% P.A. to him which he paid for purchasing the mobile in question. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in services and Rs.20,000/- on account of harassment, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Mobile Samsung Grand-2 from opposite party no.1 for Rs.18,000/- vide Retail Invoice/Bill bearing No.1320 dated 6.10.2014 as such he is consumer of opposite parties. He is reputed person and serving as District Manager (NABARD), Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India. Firstly, on 14th of January 2015 the mobile in question started giving problem of Auto Functioning and matter was reported to opposite party no.1 and Software of Mobile was updated, but of no use. Again on 23rd of January 2015 symbol of Earphone Mode was also being displayed on screen alongwith fault of Auto Functioning. Mobile was again handed over to OP No.1 and same was returned back to him on 4.2.2015 and it was said by opposite party no.1 that Mother Board of Mobile has been changed and now it will function properly but on the same day Mobile again started giving same problems. He has further pleaded that on 5.2.2015 he again handed over the mobile to opposite party no.1 but same was not repaired and opposite party no.1 advised him to approach OP no.3 and accordingly he approached OP3 on 7.2.2015 and handed over the mobile to OP No.3 and same is still lying with OP No.3. He also talked to higher official of Samsung Company on phone and on Toll Free number of company several times with different employees on different dates and time. Online complaint bearing ref. No.8472151542 was also lodged. He also talked to Mr.Deepak Head of Branch Office Ludhiana of Samsung Company on 9.2.2015, 10.2.2015 and 11.02.2015 but of no use. On 12.2.2015 OP No.2 send a mail to him through one Surya Prakash on behalf of Customer Experience Team of OP No.2 and requested him to provide his consent to proceed further, but he never gave his consent for the same as Mobile was not physically damaged as alleged by OP No.2 and it is to be repaired free of cost being in warranty period. He has next pleaded that another mail of same date i.e. 12.2.2015 was also received by him where it is alleged that Mobile in question is Tempered with and mentioned repair cost of Rs.5691.07 and requested him to provide his consent to proceed further but he never gave his consent for the same as Mobile was not tempered with as alleged by OP No.2 and it is to be repaired free of cost being in warranty period. On 13.2.2015 he got a text message on his mobile. When he approached the care centre for collecting his mobile, the dealing fellow of M.S. Communication talked very rudely with him and told that his mobile is not repaired and same will be repaired after payment repair cost of Rs.5691.07. This act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written version submitting therein that the complainant purchased mobile phone from opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.1 has only the retail outlet of Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd. (Opposite party No.2). No Guarantee is given by the authorized Service Centre of the Company and clear nothing in this regard is given in bold Letters in bill issued to the complainant. Only Warrantee Service is provided by Service Centre Staff. The opposite party no.1 has no role in providing Warranty Service. On Sign Boards installed at the retail outlet of the opposite party nor it is clearly mentioned that service is provided only by authorized Service Centre of the Company. Opposite party No.1 has nothing to do with Warranty Service of the Mobile Phones. It is only Opposite Party No.3 which deals in the providing of service. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Upon notice opposite parties no.2 & 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written statement taking the certain preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that it is matter of record that complainant purchased Samsung Grand-2 mobile from OP No.1 for a consideration of Rs.18,000/- vide bill No.1320 dated 6.10.2014. It was admitted that complainant approached OP No.3 on 7.2.2015 and submitted his handset with problem of display blinking. On inspection by OP No.3 the handset was found to be liquid damage. Due to liquid damage the handset was not covered under warranty and repair was on chargeable basis. The estimate of repair was given to complainant but same was not approved by complainant. Hence handset could not be repaired. OP No.3 several times called complainant to take back his handset if he does not want to get it repaired, but complainant with ulterior motive did not take back his handset. It was denied that any dealing hand of opposite party misbehaved with complainant, rather complainant is trying to take benefit of his own wrong by filing the present complaint. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence.
6. Sh.Shipali Behl Prop. of Krishna Electronics and Communications Ex.OP-1/1 and copy of Retail Invoice Ex.OP-1/2 and closed the evidence.
7. Counsel for the opposite parties No.2 &3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Shriniwas Joshi, Sr.Manager Samsung India Electronics Ex.OP-2,3/1 and copy of Customer Details Cum Warranty Card Ex.OP-2,3/2 and closed the evidence.
8. We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence and other documents as available on the records of the proceedings along with an exhaustive but judicious perusal of the allegations as made out in the body of the complaint in the back drop of the presenting gravity (in the complainants’ prosecution) and the OP’s rebutting defense. Further, we find that the OP1 vendor has clearly stated in his written reply and also mentioned on the Bill Ex.C2 that the repairs and warranty to the Samsung Mobile Sets is provided by the OP3 service centre and refund/ replacement etc by the OP2 Manufacturer and as such he shall not be held liable for repairs/ refund/ replacements etc The OP2 manufacturer has rightly pleaded its ‘refuge’ in the settled principle of ‘repairs’ as first-routine option and ‘refund/ replacement’ as last resort and that too as a compulsive ‘no escape’ choice. No doubt, the complainant has not categorically brought out any ‘inherent manufacturing defect’ but the ‘non-functioning’ of the Cell Machine as duly proved on record and the ‘non-attendance’ of his complaint for full ‘Four’ months are sufficient to call for a justifiable ‘refund’ of its cost price with compensation/ interest etc. To top it all, the complainant was also told to get his mobile repaired against hefty payment alleging that the same had been tampered with and free repairs were refused to him. The Mobile has since been lying with the OP3 service centre in an un-repaired condition. Somehow the counsel for the OP2 & OP3 had also failed to produce any cogent evidence that the mobile-set in question has been tampered with and also confirmed the refusal of ‘free repairs’. We find the OP2 and the OP3 both having followed ‘unfair trade practice’ and ‘have also been found ‘deficient in service’ in their dealings with the complainant and thus liable to an adverse award under the Act.
9. In the light of the all above, we find and hold the titled OP2 the OP3 Manufacturing company & its service centre both guilty of ‘unfair trade practice coupled with deficiency in service’ and thus partly allowing the present complaint, we ORDER them to refund the full cost price of the sold Mobile Set in question i.e., Rs.18,000/- to the complainant besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation for causing him unnecessary harassment within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall further attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the orders till actually paid.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
August 27, 2015 Member.
*MK*
