| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO. CC/592/18 Date of Institution:-10.01.2019 Order reserved on:-13.04.2023 Date of Decision:-19.05.2023 IN THE MATTER OF: Shallu Sharma W/o Mr. Mayank Agnihotri R/o House No. RZ A1/29 A, Palam Dabri Road, Vijay Enclave New Delhi – 110045 .......Complainant VERSUS - M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate Okhla, New Delhi – 110044 .…..Opposite party-1 - Qdigi Services Ltd.
A-233, Block A Ma Anandmayee Marg Near Crown Plaza, Okhla I, New Delhi, Delhi – 110020.…..Opposite party-2 - ACE Lingua Solutions
Shop No. B-37, New Multan Nagar, New Delhi – 110056.…..Opposite party-3 O R D E R Per Dr. Harshali Kaur, Member - The Complainant purchased a Mobile phone on 11.12.2017, SM-G930F Silver – Samsung bearing IMEI No. 356905071340962. She paid the consideration amount of Rs.29,990/- and was issued a Tax Invoice No.CHNRIG1718139983 copy of which the Complainant has annexed as Annexure-1.
- The Complainant states that her mobile phone was under warranty for one year, i.e., from 11.12.2017 to 10.12.2018, as corrected by the Complainant in her complaint with due signature. She states that the mobile phone began creating problems under the warranty period. Hence, it was the OP's liability and responsibility to remove the defects permanently or alternatively replace her defective phone with a new handset.
- The Complainant's phone began showing defects like "networking issues and sending SMS failed." On contacting the OP customer care, an executive collected her handset for removal of defects duly acknowledged by OP-1 on 21.05.2018, 03.11.2018, 19.07.2018, 09.11.2018 on page no.14, 28.07.2018, 07.12.2018, 19.08.2018, 10.12.2018, 11.10.2018, 13.12.2018 etc. copies of which are annexed as Annexure-2 with her complaint along with copies of failed SMS as Annexure-3 but the defects still persisted. However, neither OP-1 nor OP-2 replaced her defective mobile phone.
- The Complainant's husband wrote a letter on the instruction of the OPs Head Office to the customer care Manager duly received by OP-1, which the Complainant has annexed as Annexure-4, and an e-mail dated 14.12.2018 (Annexure-5). Her mobile phone was again collected on 15.12.2018 by a service centre executive from Paschim Vihar. Thereafter the Complainant's husband was asked to send a copy of the bill to the OP-2 office through a telephonic call from Mr. Pranai on 17.12.2018, assuring the Complainant that the matter would be resolved by 20.12.2018. On 19.12.2018, the Complainant was informed that the service engineer had examined her phone, and no problems were found. On 22.12.2018, the Complainant's husband asked the service centre executive to return the Complainant's phone, as despite their best efforts, the OPs could not repair/rectify the defects in her phone, and the Complainant again found the same insufficiencies in her phone.
- The Complainant wrote e-mails to the officials of OP-1 on 22.12.2018 to no avail. Despite several e-mails (Annexure-5), visits, discussions and letters (Annexure-4), when the OP did not pay any heed to the Complainant's grievance or try to resolve the same, the Complainant filed the present complaint alleging deficiency-in-service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. She has prayed for a refund of the cost of her handset, i.e. Rs.29,990/- along with Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, pain and torture and Rs.30,000/- towards litigation charges.
- Notice was issued to the OPs. OP-1 filed their reply in which OP-1 denied all the allegations made by the Complainant, stating that undoubtedly the Complainant purchased a mobile phone paying an amount of Rs.29,900/- on 11.12.2017. The mobile phone carried a warranty of one year in which the OP-1 was liable to repair the product free of cost if any issue arose within the warranty period in the mobile phone purchased by the Complainant. In case of a damaged product or if the warranty policy is voided, the product would be repaired on a chargeable basis, paid by the Complainant. OP-1 has annexed the copy of the warranty policy as Annexure-1.
- OP-1 states that the Complainant approached OP-1 on 21.05.2018 with some issues. On inspection by the engineer, it was found that the sim tray was damaged due to mishandling by the Complainant. As per the warranty policy, the Complainant's warranty of the mobile phone thus became void, and the sim tray was rectified on a chargeable basis. A copy of the job sheet issued on 21.05.2018 is annexed as Annexure-B with the reply of OP-1.
- The Complainant again approached OP-1 on 19.07.2018 with a network issue. On inspection, it was found that the PBA was damaged due to misuse/mishandling and was replaced as a goodwill gesture by OP-1, free of cost. Annexure-C (Colly) is the copy of the job sheet dated 19.07.2018 generated towards this repair.
- On 03.08.2018, when the Complainant again approached OP-1 with the mobile, no defect was found with the Complainant's phone on inspection. Thereafter, the Complainant repeatedly approached OP-1 on 11.10.2018, 23.10.2018, and 13.11.2018, but no fault was found with the Complainant's phone. Annexure-D (Colly) is the copy of the quality check report annexed by OP-1 with the reply.
- Claiming that the Complainant intentionally did not file these documents, OP-1 states no deficiency-in-service can be made out as every time the Complainant approached OP-1, the Complainant's grievance was addressed. If any issue was found, the problem was resolved as per the warranty policy.
- OP-2 and OP-3 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.03.2019 when the Complainant placed on record proof of adequate service with the requisite affidavit, and neither OP-2 nor OP-3 appeared before this Forum.
- The Complainant filed her rejoinder, stating that she had to use the standby device several times despite purchasing a mobile phone. Refuting OP-1's claim that the motherboard was replaced as a goodwill gesture, she also filed her affidavit in evidence reiterating her averments as made in her complaint and also placing on record the copy of the job sheets issued by OP-2 dated 12.11.2018, when a stand by mobile was given to her; job sheet dated 17.12.2018, wherein the Complainant's husband wrote his comments along with WhatsApp screenshot of failed SMS messages to an unknown person. She has also annexed a reply to the legal notice dated 07.01.2018 sent by the OP wherein OP-1 has mentioned that they offered a replacement of the Complainant's phone subject to the return of the Complainant's defective phone with accessories. The Complainant refused this offer of settlement.
- OP-1 filed the affidavit of Sh. Anup Kumar Mathur, AR of OP-1. He has repeated in toto what OP-1 had already stated in their reply. Both parties filed their Written Arguments, and the present complaint was fixed for final arguments. We have heard the Complainant, who appeared in person and gave liberty to Ld. Counsel of OP-1 to address oral arguments within seven working days. OP-2 and 3 are ex-parte.
- None appeared for OP-1 to address oral arguments; hence, the order was reserved. We have considered the contesting testimony filed by the parties and have perused the documents filed by both the Complainant and OP-1 to substantiate their claims. We find that the Complainant purchased a mobile phone on 11.12.2017 manufactured by OP-1, paying a consideration amount of Rs.29,990/-.
- The Complainant stated that her phone was repeatedly handed over to OP-2 & OP-3, the authorised service centres of OP-1, for repair since the mobile phone was purchased. Further, the OP replaced several essential parts during the warranty period of her mobile phone. Her phone had a one-year warranty period from 11.12.2017 (date of purchase) to 10.12.2018. She has annexed the job sheets issued by OP-2 with her complaint dated 09.11.2018. A bare perusal of this job sheet shows that a standby phone was provided to the Complainant on 12.11.2018, and the defect mentioned by the Complainant was a 'network problem, call drop'. OP-2 personnel mentioned on the job sheet that dents and scratches would be repaired as the phone was under warranty. The Complainant's phone was rectified as the Complainant's husband, Sh. Mayank received the phone after complete satisfaction with due signature on 13.12.2018.
- The Complainant has also annexed the job sheet dated 14.12.2018 with an issue of "screen mirroring issue and call drop issue, conference call not connecting, message not being sent with Black Glass Sketch' (scratch). When the Complainant's husband received this job sheet, he wrote a scathing comment about unresolved issues on 22.12.2018. Annexure-3 Colly is the screenshots of the failed SMS message to some number, the detail of which is not clarified. Simply continuing to send messages on a number which is clearly not functional does not hold any water towards proving that the phone was defective.
- When the OPs could not rectify the defects in the Complainant's phone, she demanded a replacement, as the phone had been submitted to OP-2 several times since its purchase. The OP refused to replace the mobile phone in their e-mail dated 21.11.2018 as no issue was found in the phone of the Complainant.
- OP-1 simply states that OP-2 found damage in the Sim tray of the Complainant's mobile phone, which made the one-year warranty provided along with the mobile phone void due to mishandling. Further, the Complainant approached OP-2 on 19.07.2018 with some network issues. OP-2 replaced the PBA as a goodwill gesture free of cost. PBA is the phone book access, a Bluetooth mode/profile allowing the phone to make its phone book information available to another authorised and PBA-compatible device (Car or car accessories). It also allows the authorised device to handle phone book browsing and dialling. OP-1 has also placed on record Annexure-D Colly a report of the test done on the Complainant's phone dated 24.12.2018, a document filed along with their reply. OP-1, therefore, stated that there is no deficiency of service as the Complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the Complainant mobile qua OP-1. OP-2 and OP-3 are ex-parte.
- We are of the view that even though the Complainant's mobile phone was out of warranty as claimed by the OP due to damaged sim tray, it was the promised by OPs to rectify and repair the Complainant's mobile on a chargeable basis as per their own warranty terms. The OPs failed to remedy the actual problems faced by the Complainant while using her phone, like call drop, network issues, conference call not connecting, etc. Instead, the OPs changed the PBA device, which has no relation to the defects of the Complainant's mobile phone, which is a Bluetooth device for accessing the phone book and dialling. The issues mentioned above persisted despite the change of the PBA device in the mobile phone. Hence we do not feel changing the part, even as a goodwill gesture, helped to rectify the Complainant's mobile phone functioning.
- So far as the technical and quality check report (Annexure -D colly) filed on record by OP-1. This document is a simple printout without any stamp, signature, or designation of the technician who conducted the tests and thus lacks veracity and cannot be relied upon as cogent evidence. OP-1 also did not prove this document with the affidavit filed by the AR of OP-1 company to be read as evidence for reasons best known to them.
- Hence, in our view, the Complainant who has placed on record the job sheets that clarify that the OPs could not repair her mobile phone to her satisfaction would have certainly faced mental agony and harassment due to the issue of network and call drop along with other problems despite submitting her phone on several dates from 19.07.2018 onwards, which in our view is tantamount to deficiency-in-service.
- Therefore, allowing the complaint. We direct the OPs to jointly and severally pay the Complainant a lumpsum amount of Rs.45,000/- towards the defective phone, as she had used the same for almost nine months at least, including compensation and litigation charges.
- Order is to be given dasti to the contesting parties.
- The file be consigned to the record room thereafter.
- Announced in the open court on 19.05.2023.
| |
