District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 416/2022.
Date of Institution:08.08.2022.
Date of Order:15.03.2023
Dharamvir, aged about 41 years son of Shri Chiranji Lal, resident of house No. 186, Ward No.3, Sayyad Wara, near Krishna Dairy, Old Faridabad, District Faridabad. Aadhar Crd no. 8396 9197 5828.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, 20th to 24th floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course road, Sector-43, DLF, Phase-V, Gurugram – 122002 through its Directors/principal Officers.
2. M/s. Goyal Communication, 1086, Puran Enclave, Near Miglani Bakery, Main Market, Old Faridabad through its Proprietor.
3. M/s. Teleriksson Gallery, SCO-9, First floor, Main Market, Sector-16, Front Side, Faridabad, 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.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Hari Ram, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. K.S.Rathore counsel for opposite party No.1.
Opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 ex-parte vide order dated 06.10.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Samsung mobile Phone/handset A-32, Black Grey colour bearing its IMEI No. 350894210808962 from opposite party No.2 in cash for the total sale consideration of Rs.23,499/- vide its invoice/bill No. 1216 dated 26.01.2022. Since the very inception, there were manufacturing defects in the said mobile phone, because at the time of talking, the Bluetooth the voice of the mobile was not hearable and there was also problem on the touch screen and while talking on the said mobile it used to become in the mute condition. Thereafter, the complainant personally met with the opposite party No.2 from time to time and shown the said handset but the opposite party No.2 did not give any satisfactory reply. On18.04.2022 the complainant went to the opposite party No.2 and told about the manufacturing defect of the said handset then the opposite party No.2 sent the complainant to the opposite party No.3 and when the complaint met with the opposite party No.3 then he prepared the job sheet card, but the opposite party No.3 stated that there was manufacturing defect in the said handset and the same cannot be rectified. Thereafter the complainant personally met with the opposite party No.2 and requested them either to handover new branded mobile phone or to refund back the amount of Rs.23,499/- but they flatly refused to accede to the legitimate request of the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice dated 20.05.2022 to the opposite parties but all in vain. 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 to:
a) either to get exchange the above said defective handset with another new branded current updating Samsung Mobile Phone without claiming any other amount OR to refund the sale consideration of Rs.23,499/- plus interest, immediately to the complainant.
b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-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 complaint of the complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product. The complainant in regards to complaint regarding the unit in question, approached to the service center of company for first and the last time on 18.04.2022 vide job sheet No. 4345622078 and reported touch not working problem in his unit. The engineer of the service center duly received the unit and checked and found that the display of the unit needs replacement. The engineer told to the complainant the same fact and complainant agreed for same and accordingly the display of the unit got replaced free of cost and the unit started working fine. The complainant took the delivery of unit to his full satisfaction. It was submitted that the averments of the complaint regarding any alleged manufacturing defect in the unit from the very inception of purchase of unit were absolutely and completely wrong and denied. The complainant never reported any alleged issue in his unit to the answering opposite party prior to the date 18.04.2022 and after repair of the unit, no problem had been reported by the complainant in regard to his unit. After that the answering company received a legal notice with regard to the unit in question and it was duly replied to the said legal notice and it was requested to the complainant that if there was any alleged issue, the services were available for the complainant and requested to visit the nearest service center. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Notices issued to opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 not received back either served or unserved. Tracking details filed in which it has been mentioned that “Item Delivery confirmed”. Mandatory period of 30 days expired. Hence, OP Nos.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 6.10.2022.
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–Samsung India Electroncis Pvt. Ltd. with the prayer to: a) either to get exchange the above said defective handset with another new branded current updating Samsung Mobile Phone without claiming any other amount OR to refund the sale consideration of Rs.23,499/- plus interest, immediately to the complainant. b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Dharamvir,, Ex.C-1 – Bill dated 26.01.2022, Ex.C-2 – Acknowledgement of Service Request, Ex.C-3 – Acknowledgement of Service request,, Ex.C-4 – legal notice, Ex.C-5 to 7 – postal receipts.
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 Sandeep Sahijwani, Authorized person cum head of Consumer Satisfaction Department, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 6th floor, DLF Center, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, Ex.R-1 – warranty card, Ex,R-2 - Acknowledgement of service request, Ex.R-3 – reply to legal notice dated 7th June 2022, Ex.R-4 – courier No.
7. It is evident from Bill/Cash memo vide Ex.C-1 that the complainant purchased Samsung mobile Phone/handset A-32, bearing its IMEI No. 350894210808962 from opposite party No.2 in cash for the total sale consideration of Rs.23,499/- vide its invoice/bill No. 1216 dated 26.01.2022 with warranty of one year. Since the very inception, there were manufacturing defects in the said mobile phone, because at the time of talking, the Bluetooth the voice of the mobile was not hearable and there was also problem on the touch screen and while talking on the said mobile it used to become in the mute condition. On 18.04.2022 the complainant went to the opposite party No.2 and told about the manufacturing defect of the said handset then the opposite party No.2 sent the complainant to the opposite party No.3 and when the complaint met with the opposite party No.3 then he prepared the job sheet card, but the opposite party No.3 stated that there was manufacturing defect in the said handset and the same cannot be rectified.
8. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complainant purchased mobile phone in question on 26.01.2022 vide Ex.C-1 and since the very inception, there were manufacturing defects in the said mobile phone as per Ex.C-2 which was not repaired by the opposite parties This proves that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence complaint is allowed.
9. Opposite parties, jointly & severally, are directed to replace the mobile phone in question with a new one, subject to return the old mobile , within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 15.03.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
