Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/178/2020

Ritu Garg D/o Dharam Pal Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lucky Mobile Store - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

28 Apr 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    178 of 2020.

                                                                   Date of institution:         09.06.2020.

                                                                   Date of decision: 28.04.2022

 

Ritu Garg d/o Shri Dharam Pal Garg, r/o H.No.472, Sector-13, Urban Estate, near Sessions House, Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Lucky’s Mobile Store, near Aggarsain Chowk, Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Vandana Communication (Samsung India Electronics Service Centre) at Plot No.3, Ground Floor, Raj Market, Opp. Petrol Pump, Red Road, Kurukshetra, through its Authorized Signatory.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 6^th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001, through its Manager/MD.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Rajesh Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.             

                   Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte, vide order dated 15.11.2021.

                   Shri Ankush Kapoor, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

                   Shri Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for Opposite Party No.3.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “Act”).

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile phone Samsung Galaxy A50S from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.21180/- having one year warranty, vide bill No.129/2020-21 dated 28.05.2020. The said mobile phone was manufactured by OP No.3 and OP No.2 is authorized service centre of OP No.2. The complainant saved her 1848 contacts in her newly purchased mobile phone and started using the same at her house. While using the same, she found that the device of mobile phone was extremely faulty, as its camera working and videos are severe sound producing. Secondly, sound speaker was absolutely not at all normal, rather, the receiver and caller voice is completely not clear most of the times. The sound system was quite irritating and jarring. On 28.05.2020, she informed the OP No.1 and proprietor of it, without inspecting the mobile, told there was software update issue and will resolve the same on next day, but on 30^th May, she again visited to OP No.1, where the owner of it completely ignored and behaved unknowingly with mobile issues and flatly refused to replace the mobile. On 01.06.2020, she rushed to OP No.2, where, Mr. Ritesh Bali, Manager dealt with her and kept the mobile with it for software updation and issued job sheet dated 01.06.2020 in this regard, reporting the defect description “Speaker, Voice Recorder, Back Key Not Working, Camera Problem”. After 2/3 hours, she again rushed to OP No.2 and a worker told, there was no issue in the phone and misbehaved with her and told don’t waste their time, move from here GO TO ANOTHER SERVICE CENTRE. After receiving the mobile phone from OP No.2, she found that her 1848 contacts did not contain and the problem in it was as it is. She requested many times to the OPs either to repair the mobile phone or to replace the same with new one, but all in vain, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs, causing him mental agony, harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.                On receipt of complaint, its notices were ordered to be issued against all the OPs.

4.                On receipt of notice of complaint, OP No.1 failed to appear before this Commission, either, in person or through any advocate on 15.11.2021 and was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte, on that date, by this Commission.

5.                The OP No.2 did not file any separate written statement and made a statement before this Commission to read the written statement, filed by OP No.3, as such, in its defence.

6.                The OP No.3 appeared and filed its written statement raising preliminary objections regarding cause of action and maintainability. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant with regard to product in question approached to service centre of company on 01.06.2020 vide job sheet No.4303253596 reported SPEAKER, VOICE RECORDER, BACK KEY NT WORKING & CAMERA problem in her product. The engineer of service centre duly received the product and checked and found that there is no major issue and the said problems are only due to software updation not done. He further argued that the smart phone in question is an electronics device and is sophisticated one. The smart phones in today era on an interval of time are required to be updated with latest software in order to work with more efficiency and speed, as per the latest software in order to work with more efficiency and speed, as per the latest updation in the technologies used by various services/applications. Software of mobile was got updated and complainant took the delivery of product to her full satisfaction. Thereafter, no issue was reported by the complainant. In para No.8 of the terms and conditions mentioned on job sheet that has been issued to the complainant at the time of submission of mobile for updation of software that all data will be deleted and the same fact has also been told to the complainant by the dealing person at the time of submission of mobile handset. The OPs provided the services to the complainant upto her satisfaction and if there was any issue in the mobile, as alleged by the complainant, then he should have visited to service centre of OPs. He further argued that the complainant forcibly took the mobile phone and original job sheet with him and in this regard produced copy of Email as Mark A and Mark B on the case file and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it with heavy costs.  

7.                The complainant, in support of her complaint tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C7 and closed her evidence.

8.                On the other hand, the OP No.2 did not lead any evidence in its defence, rather, made a statement to the effect that evidence adduced on behalf of OP No.3 may be read as it is, on its behalf. The OP No.3, in support of its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 and closed its evidence.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well carefully.

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased a mobile phone Samsung Galaxy A50S from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.21180/- and saved her 1848 contacts in it. While using the same, the complainant found that the device of mobile phone was extremely faulty, as its camera working and videos are severe sound producing. Secondly, sound speaker was absolutely not at all normal, rather, the receiver and caller voice is completely not clear most of the times. The sound system was quite irritating and jarring. On 28.05.2020 and thereafter, on 30^th May, she again visited to OP No.1, where the owner of it completely ignored and behaved unknowingly with mobile issues and flatly refused to replace the mobile. On 01.06.2020, she rushed to OP No.2, who kept the mobile with it for software updation and issued job sheet dated 01.06.2020 in this regard, reporting the defect description “Speaker, Voice Recorder, Back Key Not Working, Camera Problem”. After 2/3 hours, she again rushed to OP No.2, where told that there was no issue in the phone and misbehaved with her. After receiving the mobile phone from OP No.2, she found that her 1848 contacts did not contain and the problem in it was as it is. She requested many times to the OPs either to repair the mobile phone or to replace the same with new one, but all in vain.

11.              Learned counsel for the OP No.2, in the course of arguments, supported the contentions of learned counsel for the OP No.3.

12.              Learned counsel for OP No.3 argued that the complainant with regard to product in question approached to service centre of company on 01.06.2020 vide job sheet No.4303253596 reported SPEAKER, VOICE RECORDER, BACK KEY NT WORKING & CAMERA problem in her product and on inspection the same, it was found, there was no major issue and the said problems are only due to software updation not done. The smart phones in today era on an interval of time are required to be updated with latest software in order to work with more efficiency and speed, as per the latest software in order to work with more efficiency and speed, as per the latest updation in the technologies used by various services/applications. Software of mobile was got updated and complainant took the delivery of product to her full satisfaction. Thereafter, no issue was reported by the complainant. He further argued that the complainant had forcibly taken the mobile and job sheet from the OP No.2 and produced their internal email in this regard as Mark-A. He further argued that as per Samsung QC Result Mark-B, test result of mobile in question of complainant was shown as “PASS”. The OPs provided the services to the complainant upto her satisfaction and if there was any issue in the mobile, as alleged by the complainant.

13.              There is no dispute that on 28.05.2020, complainant purchased the mobile in question, from OP No.1, for a sum of Rs.21180/-, vide Tax Invoice Ex.C-1. The mobile phone was having warranty of one year. The said mobile phone was manufactured by OP No.3 and OP No.2 was authorized service centre of OP No.2.  

14.              The complainant firstly alleged that after purchasing the mobile phone, when she started to use it, she found that its camera working and videos were producing severe sound; sound speaker was absolutely not at all normal, rather, the receiver and caller voice was completely not clear, most of the times. The sound system was quite irritating and jarring and in this regard, the complainant approached to OPs No.1 & 2 on 28.05.2020, and thereafter, on 01.06.2020, but the OPs did not listen her, rather updated the software of mobile phone and issued job sheet in this regard, but the problems, which she was facing from the very beginning, persisted as it is. This way the OPs are deficient in services by not repairing her mobile set or replacing the same with new one. In this regard, the complainant produced copy of Job-Sheet dated 01.06.2020, on the case file as Ex.C2, which, he received from the OPs, at the time of depositing her mobile phone for rectification of its grievance. On the other hand, OP No.3 produced copy of that job-sheet, on the case file as Ex.R2, which they issued, to the complainant, after resolving the grievance, as narrated by the complainant, of her mobile. On comparison of both job sheets Ex.C2 and Ex.R2, we found that job-sheet Ex.C2 produced by the complainant was having only detail about depositing her mobile phone with the OP No.2 for rectification of its grievance, whereas, job-sheet Ex.R2, produced by the OP No.3, was having full detail i.e. detail about receiving back the mobile phone, by the complainant, from the OP No.2, after completing the job-works, assigned to it. Perusal of job-sheet Ex.R2 shows that in column “Warranty Status”, there is tick mark on “Full Warranty”. In column “Defect Description”, there is mentioned “SPEAKER, VOICE RECORDER, BACK KEY NOT WORKING, CAMERA PROBLEM”. However, in this job-sheet Ex.R2, in column “Repair Description”, it is written “Software updated, NDF (No Defect Found), Set working Fine”. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant also made her signature at her own, on the Declaration that “I confirm that I have receive my product in good working condition and to my full satisfaction”. Since complainant made her signature in English, therefore, it can be assumed that she was a literate lady and by signing the “Declaration”, means, she was fully aware about its contents and accepted the same. Moreover, at the time of arguments, counsel for the OP No.3 submitted that the complainant had taken her mobile set as well as original job-sheet with her and in this regard, he produced copy of internal email dated 02.06.2020 written by one Ritesh Bali from his email ID riteshraibali@gmail.com to mithil.sh@samsung.com as Mark A. He further product Samsung QC Result as Mark-B on the case file, wherein, test result of mobile in question of complainant was shown as “PASS”. So, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that on 01.06.2020, when complainant approached to OP No.2, regarding some defects in her phone, mentioned in job-sheet Ex.C2, then on checking the same, by the engineer of OP No.2, no defect (as narrated by the complainant) was found in it, and the phone required Software Updation, which was done by the OP No.2, and working of mobile phone was “Fine” and the complainant accepted the phone, as per her full satisfaction, and this fact was also corroborated by Samsung QC Test result Mark-B.

15.              The complainant further contended that she saved her 1848 contacts in the mobile phone and when she received the same, after repair, from the OP No.2, then found her 1848 contacts were deleted and in this way, the OPs are deficient in services. In this regard, the OP No.3 contended that at the time of software updation of a mobile, all the contents saved in it goes washed/deleted and the phone will come out with a refresh condition as like new/clean blackboard and the same fact has also been told to the complainant by the dealing person at the time of submission of mobile handset. Moreover, this fact is also clearly mentioned in para No.8 of the terms and conditions mentioned on job-sheet Ex.R2, that has been issued to the complainant at the time of submission of product after updating its software. Para No.8 of the terms and conditions of job-sheet Ex.R2 is relevant, which reads as under:-

                    “Data Backup and Deletion: Product settings may be restored back           to factory default settings. During service, Samsung or its ASC may                  delete any data on the Product. It is recommended that Customer            maintains separate backup copy of contents of Product’s data,                        including, but not limited to, contacts, pictures, texts, music,                       ringtones, or applications and remove all personal information.                 During service, it is possible that data on the Product may be lost,                replaced or reformatted. In such an event, Samsung or its ASC will                not be responsible for any loss of data, software, programs or other              information”.

16.              The learned counsel for the OP No.3 further drawn attention of this Commission towards document “Warranty Card” Ex.R1 and its respective important/extract parts, reads as under:-

                   General Terms & Conditions – WARRANTY CONDITIONS – Column No.11 – “Samsung shall not be responsible for any loss or misuse of data, personal information, settings, data stored in the product, third party software during product usage or repair or software update”.

                    Special Terms and Conditions – Mobile Phones: “Before submitting your Mobile Phone for service, you are requested to take care of your data, settings and personal information by backing them up. When a mobile is serviced, it may loss the data/information in it. Samsung will not be responsible for loss of data/personal information and any risks that may be associated with it”.

 

17.              So, from perusal of above terms & conditions of job-sheet Ex.R2/clauses, it is established on the record that at the time of software updation of a mobile, all the contents/data, saved in it, goes washed/deleted and Samsung or Service Centre will not be responsible for that loss/deletion, and this fact was also well explained to the complainant, at the time of submission her mobile phone, with the OP No.3. So, in this way, the complainant cannot blame the OPs, for deletion/washed out her alleged 1848 contacts, after updation of software of her mobile, for her own fault, due to non-storing/backing up the same in other device, before submitting it, with the OP No.2, for software updation. Hence, in this regard, complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service, on the part of the OPs.

18.              In this way, considering the totality of the allegations of the complainant and material brought on the record, by the complainant himself, there is not an iota of cogent and convincing evidence, on the record, to substantiate the allegations of the complainant, made into the complaint. The complainant has miserably been failed to prove any deficiency in service by either of the OPs. Complaint is devoid on merits and is liable to be dismissed.

19.              Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, complaint is, dismissed, it being devoid on merits, leaving the complainant to bear his own costs of litigations. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:28.04.2022.

    

 

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.