District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.308/2020.
Date of Institution: 15.09.2020.
Date of Order: 07.06.2022.
Shri Rakesh Chauhan S/o Shri Satbir Singh, R//o H.No. 879, Sector-31, Faridabad, Haryana – 121003.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. ABM Connect, Shop NO. F-43, Crown Interiorz Mall, Faridabad – 121003. Registered office at: Shop NO. 180, near PNB Bank ATM, Sector-17 Mkt., Faridabad – 121002 through its proprietor/partner.
2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 6th floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001 through its CEO/Managing Director.
3. Simran Communications, Plot No.1-D, Ist floor, Railway Road, Faridabad – 121001 through its Manager/Proprietor /partner.
4. Ms. Monika Sharma, device Delivery Executive, Simram Communications, Plot No.1-D, Ist floor, Railway Road, Faridabad – 121001.
5. Ms. Preeti, Repairing In Charge Simran Communications, Plot No.1-d, Ist floor, Railway Road, Faridabad – 121001.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Arpan Chaprana , counsel for the complainant.
Opposite parties Nos.1,3,4 & 5 exparte vide order dated 21.3.2022.
Shri K.S.Rathore, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant Mr. Rakesh Chauhan had purchased a Samsung Galaxy Note 10 Mobile phone having IMEI No.359019100143483 for Rs.69,999/- from opposite party No.1 who issued a bill/invoice No. 4994 dated 08.12.2019 in this regard, made and marketed by opposite party No.2 At the time of delivery of the above said mobile phone opposite party No.1 had assured the complainant that the said mobile hand set was the best one had no defect so far and had also assured complainant that the said mobile phone comes with one year replacement guaranty, and in case of any defect come then that case opposite party No.3 get the mobile set replaced from the opposite party No.2 on his own efforts. In the month of March 2020 the countrywide lockdown had been implemented due to COVID 19 Pandemic and all were restricted to come out of their places, at that time the complainant was required to send some scanned signed documents for official work for which the complainant came to know that the note series of Samsung mobile phones can digitally sign the documents using their S Pen. At that time, the complainant tried to use the S Pen of the mobile phone for the first time since the date of its purchase but after repeated trials the S Pen not came out from its place and stuck inside. The complainant hadn’t forcibly tried to fetch the S Pen but waited till the lockdown got over and contact the authorized service center of Samsung to get the issue resolved and was not able to complete the work of digital signing. After unlock 1 on dated 14.08.2020, the complainant went to the authorized service center of opposite party No.2 located at HUDA Market, Sector-16, Faridabad, Haryana and had taken the appointment vide token No WS112 dated 14.08.2020 and interacted with one of the front desk executive namely Ms. Vaishali Sood who treated the complainant very casually and was told that the complainant needs to pay Rs.1300/- towards the service charge of the defected mobile phone which was still under warranty cited the reason that it was as per the policy of opposite party No.2. The complainant had sent an email dated 15.08.2020 to opposite party No.2 explaining the issue faced by the complainant regarding which the complainant got the call on 21.08.2020 from the official of the opposite party No.2 and was advised to revisit the service center and submit the defected mobile phone and provide the details of the job sheet received towards acknowledging the defected mobile phone submission. As per the advice of the official of opposite party No.2 the complainant revisited to the authorized service center of opposite party No.2 located at Sector-16, HUDA Market, Faridabad (Haryana) where the complainant was once again denied to accept the mobile phone cited the same reason. On dated 25.08.2020, the complainant got a call from opposite party No.3 and was asked to submit the defected mobile phone for repairing as the parts ordered by them reached to the opposite party No.3. On the same day, the complainant went to the opposite party No.3 and submitted the defected mobile phone and was provided the acknowledgement towards the service request vide bill NO. 4308613191 which clearly shows the warranty status of the complainant defected mobile phone was under “full warranty”. The complainant again visited the service center on dated 28.08.2020 and submitted the acknowledgement of service and asked for his rectified mobile phone, the complainant was shocked to hear the answer from the opposite party No.4 who was device delivery executive of opposite party No.3. The complainant was forced to pay Rs.3050/- towards the cost of removing the manufacturing defect of the defective mobile phone which was still under warranty. The complainant requested the opposite party No.4 to release the mobile phone cited the reason that since the issue was related to the manufacturing defect and the defective mobile phone was still under warranty, which was clearly mentioned in the acknowledgement of service request. The complainant requested the opposite party No.4 to give the mobile phone back in the same condition as submitted, on this the opposite party No.4 and complainant was asked by opposite party No.5 to pay Rs.1000/- in cash towards the charges of problem diagnoses of the complainant under warranty mobile phone and further ask the complainant that the complainant was having two option either the complainant had to pay the charges as they demanded else the complainant had to leave the phone with opposite party No.3. The complainant was a service class person and the nature of his job was field work and official work for which the mobile phone was a necessary, which was required to continue his job and earn the living, having no option left the complainant was forced to purchase the another mobile phone on dated 03.09.2020 make One Plus having IMEI No. 865295051075232 vide invoice No.2020-21/2647 dated 03.09.2020 for amounting Rs.27,999/-. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties that the claim of the complainant in tune of Rs.2,11,999/- alognwith interest @ 12% p.a. and penalty of which may extend up to one lakh rupees on account of due to the negligence and deficiency of opposite parties/service provider the complainant was suffering a huge mental agony, risk, tension, depression, time loss and business loss. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission thinks fit may be given in favour of the complainant.
2. Notice issued to opposite parties Nos.1,3,4 and 5 received back duly served. Case called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1,3 and.4. Therefore, opposite parties Nos.1,3 & 4 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.03.2022.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complaint was trying to mislead this Hon’ble Commission and had concealed the material factas of the cse. It was pertinent to mention tha the handset had been duly checked by the engineer of service center of answering opposite party company and same had been found damaged and as per warranty policy, but knowing well the all circumstances, the complainant had made false story just only to grab illegal benefits of his own wrong. The answering opposite party provide one year standard warranty period for his handsets and also the said standard warranty was subject to some conditions and one of the condition was that, if the handset got damaged the warranty becomes void same was the case of complainant, the handset was out of warranty due to negligence on the part of the complainant. The complainant in regards to complaint regarding the handset in question, approached to the service center of the company i.e opposite party No.3 for the first time on 25.08.2020 vide call NO. 4308613191 i.e. after a period of approximate 8 months from the date of purchase which clearly reveals that the handset in question was working fine till date 25.08.2020. On that occasion, the complainant report S Pen Stuck Problem in his handset, The official of service center got deposited the handset for diagnose and issued a job sheet with remarks in warranty on basis of physical appearance and date of purchase. As the handset was in warranty on basis of date of purchase, the job sheet with remarks of in warranty was issued. However, it had also been mentioned in the job sheet regarding ELS Pending i.e. (Entry Level Scanning Pending) which means that the handset was to be checked after deposit and as per the item and conditions of warranty policy it had been mentioned in the job sheet that ELS was pending. After the handset deposited, the engineer of the company checked the handset and found that the handset was damaged i.e. (S Pen of handset was found stuck/damaged). The engineer told to the complainant that the warranty of the handset had got barred due to damage/broken and the repair of the handset should be on chargeable basis. But the complainant refused to pay the charges of repair and also refused to collect his handset and illegally started demanding replacement/refund for his handset. After that, no issue had been reported regarding the handset in question and thereafter the answering opposite party came to know about the present complaint. Opposite party No.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – M/s ABM Connect & Others with the prayer that the claim of the complainant in tune of Rs.2,11,999/- alognwith interest @ 12% p.a. and penalty of which may extend up to one lakh rupees on account of due to the negligence and deficiency of opposite parties/service provider the complainant was suffering a huge mental agony, risk, tension, depression, time loss and business loss. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission thinks fit may be given in favour of the complainant.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence EX.CW1/A – affidavit of Rakesh Chauhan, Ex. Bill dated 08.12.20219, Ex.C-2 – email, Ex.C-3 – Acknowledgement of service request, Ex.C-4 –Acknowledgement of service request, Ex.C-5 – email, Ex.C-6 – Tax invoice,, Ex.C-7 – email, Ex.C-8 & C9– letters.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party N.2 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.2 , Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Rajeev Gupta, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Having its corporate office at: 20th to 24th floor, Two Horizon Center, Golf Course road, sector-43, DLF Phase-V, Gurgaon, Ex.R-1 – warranty card, Ex.R2 – Acknowledgement of service request, Ex.C3 (Page-6_ - photo
graphs, Ex.R-4 – Estimate letter.
7. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased a Samsung Galazy Note 10 (Aura Black) 359019100143483 for a amount of Rs.69,999/- from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No. 4994 dated 08.12.2019 vide Ex,C1. After few days of its purchase, the mobile phone in question had gone out of order and was not in proper working condition. Lodging of several complaints to opposite parties personally as well as emails ipso facto go to prove that the mobile phone in question had a manufacturing defect which was not removed by the opposite parties. As such, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence complaint is allowed.
8. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 5 jointly & severally, are directed to replace the mobile phone in question with a new one, subject to return the old mobile phone in question, within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation towards mental agony, harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 07.06.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
