District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.008/2020.

 Date of Institution: 06.01.2020.

Date of Order: 06.07.2022.

Mr. Sughad Singh son of Shri Balmukand resident of DF-701, Dabua colony, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana – 121001.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                M/s. Samsung India Electronic Private Limited, A-25, Ground floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial estate, New Delhi – 110 044 through its authorized person.

2.                M/s. Simran Communication, Plot No. 69, 70 & 71, Ground floor, Om Shubam Tower, Neelam Bata Road, Faridabad (Authorised Service Centre of Samsung Company) through its authorized person).

3.                M/s. R.K. Communication, 3D/36, B.P.(Near 2 & 3 chowk), NIT Faridabad – 121001 through its proprietor.

                                                                    …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. Virender Dhankar, counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.  K.S.Rathaur, counsel for opposite party No.1.

                             Opposite party No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 12.01.2022.

                             Sh. Krishan, counsel for opposite party No.3

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the complainant had purchased a mobile phone Samsung Galaxy J6+Red bearing IMEI No. 352682102449716 and anther IMEI No. 352683102449714 for a sum of Rs.12,990/- (including all taxes) on 25.01.2019 vide bill/invoice No. 1850 from opposite party No.3 manufactured and marketed by opposite party No.1  The above mentioned Samsun mobile phone of the complainant became defective as it was not getting charge on that the complainant was handed over his mobile phone to the opposite party No.2 authorized Samsung Care Centre for removal of the defect regarding the charging in the mobile phone on 22.10.2019 and the opposite party No.2 prepared the service job sheet on 22.10.2019 vide job sheet/invoice No. 4293076637 but the opposite party No.2 did not remove the defect of the mobile phone of the complainant, and demanded an amount of Rs.6000/- for removal the defect of the mobile phone whereas the mobile phone of the complainant was in warranty period w.e.f 25.01.2019 for a one year i.e upto 24.01.2020 and the opposite party No.2 had charged Rs.177/- as services charges from the complainant illegally.  The opposite parties had failed to remove the defect from the mobile phone of the complainant although the mobile phone of the complainant was under warranty period.  The opposite party No.2 failed to remove the defect from the mobile phone of the complainant and rendered deficient short service and on the other hand demanded a sum of Rs.6000/- from the complainant without any reason and justification and when the complainant requested the opposite party No.2 that the mobile phone of the complainant was under warranty period and defect to be removed by opposite party No.2 without any charge i.e. free of cost, thereafter the opposite party No.2 had returned the defective mobile phone by saying that the charging plate of the mobile phone became defective and they would charged Rs.6000/- for replacing the same.  The complainant sent a legal notice on 13.11.2019 to the opposite parties through registered post but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                 replace the defective mobile phone and provide  proper condition new mobile phone with proper working condition to the complainant in respect of the above mentioned mobile phone which fully detailed and described in the para No.2 of  the complaint.

b)                 pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                pay the cost of mobile phone of Rs.12,990/- to the complainant.

d)                 pay Rs.10,000/ - as litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite party No.1  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that   the answering opposite party as a matter of policy issues prompt after sales service in warranty period to all its customers on priority basis and to the fullest satisfaction up to the standard of the services provided no outside interference/repair had been done to the handset and the same was not mishandled, liquid or physical damage but no such in warranty services would be provided by the answering opposite party since outside interference/repair mishandled, liquid or physical damage was evident from the product thereby breaking the terms of the warranty provided.  It was pertinent to mention that in the present case, the unit of complainant had got damaged due to liquid logging and same was not covered under warranty.  It was submitted that the answering opposite party provide one year standard warranty period for his units and also the said standard warranty was subject to some terms & conditions and one of the condition was that, if the unit got damaged due to liquid logging/i.e contact with water or any type of liquid, the warranty becomes void. In fact, the complainant in regards to complaint regarding the unit in question, approached to the service centre of answering company vide call No. 4293076637 on 22.10.2019 i.e after a period of approx. 9 months from the date of purchase.  It was evident of the fact that the unit was working fine till date 22.10.2019 and on that occasion, the complainant reported charging not connect problem in his unit.  The engineer of the answering company checked the unit and found that the unit was damaged due to liquid logging/i.e. contact with any type of liquid.  The engineer told to the complainant that the unit was not covered under warranty and also the unit  had got water logged and the warranty of the unit had got barred and the repair of the unit shall be on chargeable basis  and an estimate of repair was provided to complainant.  But the complainant became adamant and started demanding free of cost repair/replacement for his unit. After that, the complainant sent a baseless legal notice whereby demanded free of cost repair/replacement. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the  allegations levelled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Registered notice issued to opposite party No.2 on dated 09.12.2021 not received back either served or unseved.  Case called had been called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1. Period of one month had been elapsed.  Hence, opposite party No.2 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.01.2022.

4.                Opposite party No.3  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that opposite party No.3  was a mobile retailer under the name of M/s. R.K. Communication represented by its proprietor, Shri  Ravi Kumar, aged 61, vide GST IN : 06AXFPK9625HIZA and situated at the address mentioned in the complaint. It was submitted that the role of opposite party No.3 was very lean and limited and only to hand over/sale the mobile phone as mentioned in the complaint to the complainant under the capacity of retailer.  Opposite party No.3 was neither the manufacturer nor the service provide hence the cause of action had never been arisen against the opposite party No.3..  It was also submitted that all claims/complaints which were related with the mobile phone as mentioned in the complaint were only to be settled by opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 respectively and opposite party No.3 had no significant role to play for the claim/grievances of the complainant and other parties to the present complaint. Opposite party No.3 denied rest of the  allegations levelled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Opposite party No.3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

6.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

7.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – M/s. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. with the prayer to : a)          replace the defective mobile phone and provide  proper condition new mobile phone with proper working condition to the complainant in respect of the above mentioned mobile phone which fully detailed and described in the para No.2 of  the complaint. b) pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay the cost of mobile phone of Rs.12,990/- to the complainant. d) pay Rs.10,000/ - as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shri Sughad Singh, Ex.C-1 – Tax invoice,, Ex.C-2 – Tax invoice, Ex.C-3 – legal notice. Ex.C-4 to C-6 – postal receipts,, ex.C-7 – reply to legal notice.

                   On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1, Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Rajeev Gupta, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, Ex.R-1 – Warranty card,, Ex.R-2 – Acknowledgement of service request,, Ex.R-3 – estimate letter,, Ex.R-4 – Technical report, Ex.R-5 – reply to legal notice, Ex.R-6 – Details, Ex.R-7 – legal notice, Ex.R-8 -  photos.

8.                Evidence on behalf of opposite party  No.3 has not been filed. Hence, evidence on behalf of opposite party No.3 is closed as per court order.                 

9.                Shri K.S.Rathore, counsel for opposite party No.1 has made a statement on 6.07.2022  that “opposite party No.1 is ready to repair the article/mobile phone free of costs as the same is however due to liquid damage.”     

10.              On the basis of the statement of counsel for opposite party No.1, the Commission is of the opinion that  the complaint is disposed off with the direction to opposite party No.1 to replace the mobile phone in question with a refurbished phone of the same model.  The complainant is also directed to hand over the old mobile phone to the opposite party No.1. There are no order as to costs. Compliance of this order  be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced on:  06.07.2022                                 (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.