Delhi

North

CC/300/2022

MS. KUSUM & ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

06 Nov 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No. 300/2022

In the matter of

1. Ms.Kusum

D/o Sh.Dharamdev

R/o B-1246, Ist floor

Shastri Nagar, Delhi                                                                 

 

2. Sh.Ayush

S/o Sh.Anil

R/o 748/41, Kabir Basti

Firni Road, Mundka

New Delhi-110041                                                                                                              ...Complainants

vs

 

1. M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd

(Services effected through its

Chairman/Principal Officer/Managing Director/Manager)

6^th floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, Janpath

Connaught Place, New Delhi, Delhi-110001

Also at

20^th to 24^th floor, Two Horizon Centre

Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF Ph.V

Gurgaon, Haryana-122202                                                                                  ... Opposite party

 

2. M/s Sane Retails Pvt.Ltd.

(Services effected through its

Chairman/ Principal Officer/Managing Director/Manager)

S.C.O.219, First floor

Sector-14, Panchkula, Haryana-134113                                                             ... Opposite party

 

3. M/s.Maa Vaishnavi E Services Pvt.Ltd.

(Samsung Authorized Service Centre)

(service through its

Chairman/Principal Officer/Managing Director/Manager)

A-116, GGI, Ground floor, DDA Flat

Vikas Puri, Near PVR, West Delhi

           New Delhi-110058                                                                                            ... Opposite party

                                     

ORDER

06/11/2023

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

          The present complaint has been filed by Ms.Kusum, as Complainant No.-1 as Sh.Ayush as Complainant No.2 against, M/s Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. as OP-1;M/s. Sane Retail Pvt. Ltd. as OP-2 and Maa Vaishnavi E-services Pvt.Ltd.(Authorised service Centre) as OP-3 with the allegations of deficiency in services.  

1. Fact necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are, on 23/10/2020 the Complainant No.2 purchased Samsung Galaxy F41 having IMEI No.350265511560679 from OP-2 vide invoice No.FAAO5Q210019032 for Rs.13,049/- for Complainant No.1. 
2. It has been stated by the complainant that after about 10 months there was some problem in the software due to which the handset started hanging up for which the complainant informed the Authorised dealer.  The complainant was instructed to visit Samsung authorised service centre. 
3. On 01/09/2021, the complainant visited OP-3 and handed over the handset for repair, the complainant was also informed that the complainant No.1 has to pay Rs.1300/- for repairs.  After two days the complainant No.1 was again informed that the cost of repair of the handset will be Rs.9,000/-, despite the fact that the handset was under warranty.   It has been averred by the complainant No.1 that the handset was neither repaired nor returned by OP-3. 
4. A legal notice dated 28/09/2021, was served upon OP demanding return of the complainant’s handset; extending the warranty for the days the handset was kept for repair; replacement or refund the cost of the handset in case OPs were not agreeable to repair or extension of warranty. 
5. Feeling aggrieved by the act/omission on the part of Ops, the complainants have prayed for directions to OPs: -

1. To return the mobile phone i.e. Samsung Galaxy F41 having IMEI No.350265511560679 after restoring the same in its original condition to the complainant No.1
2. To extend the warranty of the said phone for the days when the said phone was kept with OP-3  for repair and was not used by the complainant No.1
3. To handover a brand new same handset or of the same value if not agreed on point (a) or (b) or to return the cost of the handset Rs.13,049/- to the complainant No.1 with interest from day of purchase till the date of payment.
4. Pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for harassment, tension and agony undergone by the Complainants.
5. Pay to the Complainants a sum of Rs.25,000/- as costs of the present Complaint and its proceedings.

6. The Complainant has annexed the photo ID of Complainant No.2 ; tax invoice dated 23/10/2020 issued by OP-2; jobsheet dated 09/01/2021 ; Legal notice dated 28/09/2021 served to OPs along with postal receipts ; reply dated 03/11/2021 by OP-1  to the Legal notice ; reply dated 18/10/2021 to the legal notice by OP-2 has been annexed with the complaint.
7. Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP-1 to OP-3. 
8. Written statement was filed on behalf of OP-1. They have taken several preliminary objections such as:  the complaint is abuse of the process of law and not maintainable; allegations of deficiency in services were without any relevant and legal documentary evidence; the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect. It has been submitted that the OP-1 is a globally renowned manufacturer of various type of electronic and household items such as mobile, LED TV, Washing machine, Refrigerator etc. which are globally acclaimed for its class and quality and the products manufactured by OP-1 pass through stringent quality check and test trials.  OP-1 is well supported by service centre through wide network for attending any service/repairs and assistance to the customer in distress. 
9. It has been submitted that the Complainant No.2 had purchased the handset from OP-2 on 23/10/2020 in a good condition and after  full satisfaction.  The handset was under one year warranty and as per warranty terms and conditions,  in case there was any issue/problem with the said product, then, OP-1 shall repair the same free of cost.  However, in the case of breach of warranty terms and conditions the warranty shall be cancelled and the product shall be repaired on chargeable basis. 
10. It has been admitted that the complainant No.1 had approached OP-1 for the first time on 01/09/2021 i.e. after using the product for 11 months.  The service engineer on behalf of OP-1 after inspecting the handset informed the complainant that it was “Liquid logged” and therefore, PBA needed to be replaced and the warranty of the handset had become void due to mishandling.  The service charges for repairs  were to be paid by the complainant.  They have  reproduced the warranty terms and conditions  stating that the warranty with respect to the said product became void in cases when the said product is

1. Liquid logged/water logging
2. Physical damage
3. Serial no. missing
4. Mishandling/ burnt etc.

11. In the instant case the complainant did not take care of the product and due to mishandling the warranty became void. It was the complainant who refused to pay service charges and wanted repair on free of cost basis which s beyond the agreed terms and conditions. 
12. They have further submitted that an estimated letter on 19/10/2021 of Rs.7,255/- was issued to the complainant which was declined by the complainant.  As complainants did not collect their handset from the authorised service centre of OP-1, therefore, a letter dated 29/10/2021, seeking appointment to deliver the product was issued however, the complainants did not respond to the same.  OP-1 was/is ready to repair the handset subject to warranty terms and conditions. The replacement or refund is expressly excluded from warranty terms and conditions.  Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied with the prayer for the dismissal of the complaint.
13.  They have annexed warranty terms and conditions as Annexure-A, snapshot of the defective product as Annexure-B, copy of estimate letter as    Annexure-C,  Copy of the letter dated 29/10/2021 as Annexure-D.
14. OP-2 also filed their written statement.  In their defence they have stated that they are registered re-seller on the website “Flipkart.com” and engaged in selling the product of other manufacturer/traders etc. Thus, it is a separate and distinct entity from OP-1. The warranty and after sale services are provided by the product manufacturer and the role of OP-2 comes to an end as soon as the product is delivered by a third party courier service provider.  Thus, no deficiency in services can be alleged against them.  Rest of the contents of the compliant have been denied with the prayer for dismissal the complaint with exemplary cost.  
15. None appeared on behalf of OP-3 despite service, neither any reply was filed on their behalf, hence, OP-3 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 01/11/2022.
16. Rejoinder to the Written Statement of OP-1 was filed by the complainant, denying the contents of the written statement and reaffirming those of the complaint.
17. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant No.1 reiterating the facts of the complaint. She has got exhibited the copy of voter ID as      Ex.CW-1/A; invoice dated 23/10/2020 as Ex.CW-1/B, service request dated 01/09/2021as Ex.CW-1/C.
18. The Legal notice dated 28/09/2021, served upon OPs alongwith postal receipts and courier receipt are Ex.CW-1/D, Ex.CW-1/E and Ex.CW-1/F respectively. The reply by OP-2 and OP-3 to the said legal notice have been exhibited as Ex.CW-1/G & Ex.CW-1/H.  It has been reiterated that OP-1 and OP-3 have not repaired the mobile phone and have kept the same in their illegal custody and have also refused to return the same to the complainant despite repeated request.
19. OP-1 has got examined Sh. Sandeep Sahajewani, Authorised Representative on their behalf.  He has also repeated the content of the written statement and has relied upon the copy of the warranty policy and has got exhibited as Ex.OPW-1/A: copy of the snapshot of the defective product as Ex.OPW-1/B; copy of estimate letter Ex.OPW-1/C; copy of letter dated 29/10/2021 Ex.OPW-1/D.
20. Sh. Ajay Sehgal, authorised signatory has been examined on behalf of OP-2.  He has reaffirmed the contents of their written statement.    
21. We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP-1.  We have also perused the material placed on record and written arguments.
22. The complainant has alleged that OP-1 and OP-3 not only failed to repair the handset but did not return the same.  Tax invoice and Acknowledgement service Report (Ex.CW-1/B & Ex.CW-1/C respectively) are not in dispute. If we look at Ex.CW-1/B, the date of purchase is 23/10/2020, it bears one year warranty period by the manufacturer from the date of purchase.  As per Ex.CW-1/C which is dated 01/09/2021, the handset was still under warranty with the defect description as “No Power/No getting on/Always”. The complainant was asked to pay  Rs.7,255/- +Rs.1,300/-(Labour only) on the ground that there was breach of warranty terms and conditions as it was found that there was ‘Liquid Logged’, therefore, PBA needed to be replaced. 
23.  The OP-1 has placed on record an estimate letter dated 19/10/2021 bearing Sr.No.RZ8NA0A8KTN with respect to repair bill No.4331405389 and another letter dated 29/10/2021 addressed to the Complainant No.-2 wherein they have again mentioned in reference to mobile bearing Sr.No. RZ8NA0A8KTN.  The said letter has been issued by OP-3 the Authorised service centre of OP-1.  However, as per Ex.CW-1/C, the Sr.No. is RZ8NB0EC72V (********2809448) and bill No.4331408521.   Thus, the Sr.No. and bill No. in Ex.CW-1/C  are different from the documents filed by OP-1 in their defence.  Therefore, it seems to be a defence created by OP-1.  
24. OP-1 has also placed on record, the snapshots of the PBA (Ex.OPW-1/B). The said snapshots do not bear any data such as Bar code/Serial number, from where it can be ascertained that the said snapshots of the PBA are of the handset in dispute or of some different mobile. Therefore, it cannot be considered that the said snapshots are of the handset in dispute. Hence, OP-1 has failed to prove that there was breach of warranty condition on the part of the complainant, which rendered the handset out of warranty and complainant was liable to pay for repairs.
25. Thus, from the above discussion we are of the opinion that OP-1 denial of repair of the handset free of cost, which was still under warranty amounts to deficiency in service. However, no liability can be fastened on OP-2 as they are mere seller and after sale services are to be provided by the manufacturer.  As OP-3 has been proceeded ex-parte, the allegations made by the Complainants have been remained unrebutted.
26. The complainant No.-2 has been deprived from the use of her handset since 01/09/2021 and thereafter, this has definitely caused mental harassment and agony to the complainant. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and in the interest of justice, we direct OP-1 and OP-3 jointly and severely liable to :-

1. Pay to the Complainants a sum of Rs.10,439/- (considering the depreciation @20% of Rs.13,049/-i.e. cost of handset) towards the value of the handset, as the  Complainant No.-2 has already used the handset for 11 months.
2. Pay to the Complainants a sum of Rs.12,000/- on account of compensation for mental harassment, tension and agony, inclusive of cost of litigation.

The order be complied with in 30 days from the date of receipt of order. In case of non-compliance, the OP-1 and OP-3 shall be liable to pay interest @7% per annum on (a)+(b) from the date of order till realisation.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya)              Member	(Ashwani Kumar Mehta)                          Member       (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)           President