Haryana

Panchkula

CC/53/2015

SANDEEP SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTROINCS PVT .LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

05 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	53 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	18.03.2015
Date of Decision	:	05.08.2015

                                                                                          

Sandeep Singh resident of Flat No. 301, GHS 104 B, Ruhani Adrash Apartments, Sector 20, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 7^th 8^th Floor IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi through its Chairman or Maintaining Director.
2. Authorized Samsung Service Centre of M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. SCO No. 203, Sector 14 Ist Floor, Near Bank of Baroda, Panchkula through its Manager.
3. Amar Telecom, DSS 313 First Floor Sector 20, Panchkula through its Proprietor/owner, Sh. Himanshu Gaba.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:               Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                            

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for Ops No. 1 & 2.

OP No.3 already exparte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a mobile ‘Samsung Galaxy Core Prime’ Model of Samsung Company on 28.01.2015 for a sum of Rs. 9490 vide bill No. 411 (Annexure C1) from the Op No.3 with a warranty of one year.  At the time of purchase, the OP no. 3 assured about the quality and good performance of the mobile. But the phone started giving problem from the first week of its purchase. The mobile phone started problem in hearing, clarity of voice, radio voice was very low and was also not clear at any station. Complainant visited Op No. 3 for repair of the mobile who suggested him to approach the Samsung Service Centre i.e. OP no. 2.  The complainant is an Advocate by profession so he approached the OP no. 2 on 10.03.2015 and explained the defects in mobile to Mechanic and Manager of OP no. 2 and the complainant was asked to come on 11.03.2015.  The complainant was issued job sheet (Annexure C 2) and mobile set was retained but battery, back cover, sim cards and memory cards were returned to the complainant. On 11.03.2015 at about 9.25 a.m., when the complainant was ready to move for Court he received a call from the office of OP no. 2 that your mobile was ready for delivery and you could receive it from service centre.  At about 9.40 a.m. when the complainant received the mobile he noticed that same problem was still there in the device.  The complainant asked for the attendant he stated that reset had been done and software had been updated due to which complainant noticed that all the contacts and important messages saved in his device were deleted. Instead of setting the mobile right, the OP no. 2 had updated the software of the mobile and the problem still existed in the mobile.  On asking of complainant, the Mechanic of OP no. 2 asked the complainant to leave the device again alongwith battery and back cover. The mechanic mentioned battery number on the job sheet and returned the job sheet after retaining the mobile and the complainant was asked to come at 2.00 p.m. to collect the mobile.  When the complainant collected the phone, the problem was still there.  The complainant lodged a complaint to customer care no. 180010011 at about 12.00 p.m. on 11.03.2015 and complaint no. 8460298136 was registered. On 11.03.2015, the complainant again visited the OP no. 2 but the OP no. 2 stated that his mobile was not repaired yet and we would call the complainant in the evening.  But no call was received by the complainant.  The complainant again called customer care centre on 11.03.2015 & 12.03.2015 and its executive had sent email to OP no. 2.  The complainant had made a call to OP no. 2 to know the status of his mobile but the concerned person of OP no. 2 told that his mobile was not repaired and could come in the evening. On 12.03.2015, the complainant received a message that “Dear customer we thank you for the opportunity to serve you. Trust your product problem has been resolved for any assistance contact 18003008282/18002668282”. The complainant enquired the status of his mobile and came to know that that repair was under process. On which the complainant called at customer care No.18003008282 and has given a notice on telephone that they have retained the mobile for more than 42 hours but unable to rectify the fault and if he did not receive the mobile he would initiate legal proceeding against them on which a notice was sent to higher authorities. After that the complainant had received a call from head office of OP No.1 and it was stated that they would forward the complaint of the complainant to higher officers and assured that the defect would be removed soon. On 13.03.2015 at about 5.30 pm, the complainant received a call of one Shahzad from the office of Op No.2 who stated that the device has been repaired and he could receive it. The complainant visited the Op No.2 and checked the mobile but the defect still existed.  The complainant told the Manager about the defect who stated that there was manufacturing defect and it could not be repaired and also advised the complainant to meet Krishan Lal Saini, branch service head, quote no. 8, sec 40B, Chandigarh.  On which the complainant called the customer care centre and told the Manager/OP no. 2 the status of the mobile who advised him not to receive the mobile and left it with OP no. 2 and also stated that they would examine it & send it to the expert person but to no avail. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the complainant has provided a copy of bill dated 28.01.2015 in respect of the purchase of the mobile set. It is submitted that the complainant was directed to place on record the original copy of the bill and the same could only be verified on the production of the original bill. It is submitted that the mobile carried warranty of one year. It is denied that the mobile set started giving problem from the very 1^st week of its purchase. It is submitted that the complainant had not approached the Ops for the purpose of repair. It is submitted that the mobile set was provided on 10.03.2015. It is submitted that the dealer was not the authorized service centre and in case of any repair or any warranty conditions, the same was required to be sent to the service centre.  It is submitted that the mobile set was brought for the purposes of checking and repair for the 1^st time on 10.03.2015.  It is denied that the complainant was told that the mobile set would be ready on 11.03.2015.  It is submitted that normally it took about 48 hours for the purposes of repair. It is submitted that the complainant insisted that he should be returned the mobile set on 11.03.2015 and as per records no such commitment was given.  It is submitted that in the normal course the battery, sim card, the memory card etc. were returned so that the same was not mixed with other identical accessories, which may be lying in service centre, of the other customers. It is submitted that during the course of the checking the service staff felt that it was necessary that the battery available with the customer should also be checked. It is further submitted that during the course of the checking of the mobile set the software was required to be reloaded which was done in the normal course. It is submitted that the company could not be held responsible for any part of the customer wherein he may not have backed up prior to giving the phone for the purpose of repair and checking to the service centre. It is submitted that in normal course, the delivery of the mobile set for the purpose of repair intimated telephonically whenever the repair is completed. It is submitted that the complainant has chosen to repeatedly come for the purposes of the delivery of the mobile set even when the same was not completed on 11.03.2015. It is submitted that on 12.03.2015, the mobile set was still under checking after uploading of the software. It is submitted that on 13.03.2015, the complainant was again called for the purposes of taking the delivery of the mobile set. It is denied that there was any defect in the mobile set.  Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops no. 1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.   
3. Notice was issued to the Op No.3 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.3. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.04.2015.
4. Complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavits Annexure C A & Annexure C B alongwith documents Annexure C 1 to C 3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for Ops no. 1 & 2 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure OP1,2/A and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard complainant as well as learned counsel for Ops no. 1 & 2 and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. It is evident from the detailed invoice (Annexure C 1), coupled with affidavit (Annexure C A) of the complainant that he purchased Samsung Galaxy Core Prime Model mobile phone from Amar Telecom, DSS 313, First Floor, Sector 20, Panchkula (OP No.3)  on 28.01.2015 for Rs.9,490/ . The hand set is manufactured by OP No.1 and the OP No.2 is the authorized service center. The copy of the job sheet dated 10.03.2015 (Annexure C 2) shows that the complainant reported the problem as “receiver voice not clear, in radio voice not clear” just within 1½ months from the purchase of the mobile hand set in question. Then the handset was handed over to the Op No.2 on 10.03.2015 vide job sheet (Annexure C 2). The complainant further alleged that the mobile handset in question was not repaired and presently it is in possession of the Op No.2.
7. The stand taken by the Ops No.1 and 2 is that whenever the defect was reported to them, the same was rectified. It is the complainant who himself is not collected the repaired mobile hand set from the service center (OP No.2).
8. Having regard to the documents on record, there is sufficient evidence proving that the handset in question had various problems and therefore, the same was handed over to the Op No.2 for service very frequently which is crystal clear from the job sheet annexed as Annexure C 2 and C 3. Moreover, the Op No.2 instead of returning the handset to the complainant after necessary repairs kept the same in possession, which clearly proves deficiency in service on its part.
9. Evidently, the demand of the complainant for refund of the invoice price i.e. Rs.9490/ the cost of the mobile handset is due to the occurrence of the defect time and again due to poor service and poor product quality, therefore, he is not more interested in continuing with the same. The complainant has also placed on record the affidavit (Annexure C B) of Om Parkash alias Shalu to the effect that he purchased the second hand mobile set for Rs.4600/ due to non-repair of the hand set by the Op No.2. Non repairing and keeping the mobile handset in its possession, the Op No.2 certainly caused physical and mental harassment to the complainant which proves deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
10. In the light of the above observation, we are of the concerted view that the Ops are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the complainant deserves to succeed against the Ops and the same is allowed qua them. The Ops are directed jointly and severally as under

(i)      To refund the cost of Rs.9490/ of the mobile handset alongwith 9% interest from the date of deposit till realisation.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.7000/ as compensation for deficiency in service, causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

05.08.2015                     ANITA KAPOOR                            DHARAM PAL

                                      MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT