Haryana

Ambala

CC/163/2022

Roheni Koul - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Manu Rastogi

01 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	163of 2022
Date of Institution	:	01.06.2022
Date of decision	:	01.03.2023

 

Roheni Koul wife of Sh. Manu Rastogi aged about 33 years, resident of H.No.6280, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant

                                versus

1. M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, through its Managing Director having its regd. office at: 6th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. Samsung Smart Café, Excellent...through its Proprietor, Nicholson Road, Opp. Bank of Maharastra, Ambala Cantt
3. Samsung authorized Service Centre, through its proprietor, Smart care Services, 217, Shastri Nagar, Opp. Girl High School, Jammu-180004.

 

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Manu Rastogi, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.                                  Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of directions to them, to pay Rs.4,614/- as cost of replacement of screen of handset, Rs.5,000/- for causing harassment, tortures and mental agony to the complainant and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses and interest @12% per annum on all the abovesaid amounts from the date of damage of handset till the date of actual payment.

2.           Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Samsung Mobile Handset A-31 from OP No.2 vide Invoice no. SC/6408 dated 7.11.2020 for Rs.19,999/-. The said mobile handset was manufactured by OP No.1. At the time of purchase of said mobile handset the complainant had also purchased Samsung Care plus accidental damage and liquid damage protection plan having service contract no.IND20K072365331 for one year covering all type of warranty including its breakage etc. for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.549/- in addition to the purchase amount. On 6.11.2021 the complainant went away to Jammu by her own car to meet her parents and met with an accident in the evening on 07.11.2020 at about 7.30 P.M. and suffered multiple minor internal injuries on her body and in the said accident the said Mobile handset display screen got damaged. 7.11.2021 was Sunday and the complainant being out of her residential house could not intimate the OPs immediately about the loss/damage to the mobile handset. On 08.11.2021 when the complainant felt herself easy after bodily injuries, she contacted OP No.1 on toll free customer care no.18002021234 at about 11.30 a.m. and got her complaint registered regarding damage to the handset and the said customer care centre told the complainant that they will call back the complainant shortly. After registration of the said complaint the complainant received telephonic call from the said customer care centre in the evening at about 5.30 p.m. and was told that the Careplus plan of the complainant has already expired on 7.11.2021 midnight itself and as such rejected the claim. However, the complainant was advised that in case there is still any grievance, the complainant can send an email to the official email id support.careplus@samsung.com of OP No.1. The complainant again contacted the customer care centre of OP No.1 through E. Mail on 8.11.2021 at 6.18 p.m. itself and the same was replied on 09.11.2021 at 5.46 P.M, rejecting the claim of the complainant on the same ground that the policy has expired and that the complainant should have visited the customer service centre within the validity period only.  The complainant who was not in perfect condition of health was not supposed to visit the customer care centre in the short span on 7.11.2021 itself when her claim was quite genuine. The complainant who was away to Jammu at the relevant time and was not possessing the copy of the bill and other details to lodge the complaint immediately. The complainant had to take out necessary details from her home at Ambala Cantt and only after receiving the details of bill and the toll free no. etc. the complainant lodged the complaint. Since the OPs have failed to replace the display screen as per the care plus policy /claim under warranty and as such the complainant has to get the said screen replaced from OP No. 3 as per Invoice No. HHP2021K1015 dated 11.10.2021 at Jammu after paying Rs.4614/-. Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that maintainability, cause of action, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts, locus standi and bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties etc. On merits, it has been stated that no doubt, the complainant has purchased the "accidental damage and liquid damage protection plan" i.e. (ADLD) for the unit in question from the OPs, validity of which was till 07.11.2021. The complainant herself admitted in her complaint that the intimation for alleged damage of unit in question was given to the OPs on 09.11.2021. Merely oral submissions that the damage to the mobile in question was occasioned on 07.11.2021 are not sufficient to prove the averments of the complaint that the damage to the mobile in question was occasioned on 07.11.2021. In fact, the present complaint is nothing but a concocted story to cover the damage of the mobile under the ADLD plan without any cause. As per the terms and conditions of SAMSUNG CARE + ADLD (ACCIDENTAL DAMAGE & LIQUID DAMAGE PROTECTION), any damage or loss, occasioned is covered only for a period of one year and to avail the benefits of the ADLD pack, the loss or damage should be reported to the OPs within the warranty period with proof of IMEI Number & Invoice. Whereas, in the instant case, the complainant has raised a request for ADLD plan benefit on 09.11.2021 i.e. out of plan period. The OPs are always ready to provide services as per conditions of warranty and care + Plan, but the complainant refused to get services as per the terms of plan. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP tendered affidavit of Sandeep Sahijwani, C/o Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., 6^th Floor, DLF Center, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 as Annexure OP-1/A alongwith documents Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs. 
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by not rectifying the defect of the mobile handset free of cost, despite the fact that the damage was caused to it during the period when it was covered under Samsung Care plus accidental damage and liquid damage protection plan-no.IND20K072365331 covering all type of warranty including its breakage etc. for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.549/- in addition to the purchase amount, the OPs are deficient in providing service.
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs submitted that since the Samsung Care plus accidental damage and liquid damage protection plan- no. IND20K072365331 covering all type of warranty including its breakage etc. expired on 07.11.2021, whereas, on the other hand, the complainant had reported the said loss on 09.11.2021 i.e. after expiry of warranty period, as such, she was not entitled to any  free services under the said plan and was rightly asked to get the mobile handset repaired on payment basis.
8.           It may be stated here that it is the own case of the complainant that though she met with an accident in the evening on 07.11.2020 at about 7.30 P.M. and suffered multiple minor internal injuries on her body and in the said accident the said Mobile handset display screen got damaged, yet, it was on 08.11.2021 only that she contacted OP No.1 on toll free customer care no. 18002021234 at about 11.30 a.m. and got her complaint registered regarding damage to the handset.  In the first instance, it is significant to mention here that not even a single evidence to support that the complainant met with any alleged accident has been placed on record by the complainant. Apart from this, the submission made by the complainant in her complaint that left with no alternative, she had to get the mobile handset repaired on payment basis from OP No.3 vide tax invoice dated 11.10.2021 appears to be doubtful, because how is it possible that the complainant allegedly met with an accident on 07.11.2021 but the said mobile had been got repaired by her from OP No.3 on 11.10.2021 i.e. about 26 days in advance.

Be that as it may, it is also coming on record that the complainant contacted the customer care centre of OP No.1 through E. Mail, Annexure C-4 only on 8.11.2021 at 6.18 PM. It is also not in dispute that the warranty of the said mobile hand was covered only upto 07.11.2021. Under these circumstances, irrespective of the fact that only one day have elapsed in respect of the warranty of the said mobile handset, yet, this Commission cannot go beyond the valid contract having been executed between the parties by way of under Samsung Care plus accidental damage and liquid damage protection plan-no.IND20K072365331 covering all type of warranty including its breakage etc. which says that the warranty period of the said mobile handset will expire on 07.11.2021. This Commission, on its own, cannot extend the period of warranty even for a single day. It is settled law that the courts and Tribunals cannot rewrite contracts and direct payment contrary to the terms of the contract.  It was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. Vs Smt. S Sindhu, Appeal (civil)  4492 of 2000, decided on 4 May, 2006. Under these circumstances, since the warranty period in respect of the mobile handset stood expired on 07.11.2021, yet, the complainant sought rectification of defects in the mobile handset, for the first time on 08.11.2021, as such, we cannot direct the OPs to provide any benefit of warranty to the complainant in  respect of the said damaged mobile handset. 

9.           For the reasons recorded above, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 01.03.2023.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President