Case No.CC/132/2016

Date of Institution: -31.03.2016

Order Reserved on: - 29.01.2024

           Date of Order: -17.05.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sunder Singh

S/o Late Sh. Uday Bhan,

R/o House No. 1, Village Nanak Hari,

Near Shiv Temple,

Delhi – 110071.

          …..Complainant

Versus

M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

A-25, Ground Floor,  Front Tower,

Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Okhla, New Delhi – 110020.

..…Opposite Party

O R D E R

Dr. Harshali Kaur, Member

1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Complainant has purchased a new mobile phone through an online portal, Samsung Galaxy Grand Duos 19082, with two flip cover bearing no. EMEI No. 355886055742699 from M/s Goel India Corporation vide order No. 4671068342. The Complainant paid Rs.15,490/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred Ninety) for the said phone, towards which a retail invoice was generated vide retail invoice no. SBA77F/14-15/1287on 28.01.2015. A copy of the invoice is annexed as Annexure-1. The Complainant alleges that his phone has a warranty of one year along with replacement from the date of purchase.
2. The Complainant alleges that he faced the defect of hanging and touch problems from the day of purchase of the phone and other defects such as SMS, call being automatic, short battery life, display light problem, volume very slow, camera quality very poor, etc. The Complainant immediately reported the matter to the customer care service centre of the OP in April 2015. The OP executive advised the Complainant that the defect would be removed automatically after some time since it was a new phone. The OP executive also advised him to go to the nearest service centre, and they would repair the phone.
3. The Complainant had visited the service centre of the OP, and the software was updated and returned without any job card issued for the said repair. However, the defect was not removed.Hence, theComplainant again deposited his phone at the authorized service centre in Najafgarh under the warranty period vide acknowledgement of service request bill no. 4201314552 dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure 2).
4. The Complainantrequested the OP to replace his mobile phone with a new phone but to no avail. When the OP refused to replace his phone, the Complainant emailed the OP, who did not take any action to replace his defective mobile.The Complainant alleges that the defect of his phone was not removed, and he again deposited his phone to be repaired on 28.09.2015, which was returned to him on 05.10.2015.
5. The Complainant states that he deposited his phone several times at the authorized service centre of the OP; however, the defect was not removed, and neither was his request for replacement of the phone, which was still under warranty, acknowledged and acted upon. The Complainant has annexed the acknowledgement of service requests issued by the OP service centreon 16.09.2015 (Annexure 2), 28.09.2015 (Annexure 3) and 11.10.2015 (Annexure 4).
6. When the Complainant's phone could not be rectified to his satisfaction, he wanted to deposit the same with the OP service centre. He was informed that the contract and all liabilities had shifted to the manufacturer, and he was advised to submit the handset to the authorized service centre, namely M/s HCL Services Ltd. The Complainant submitted his phone on 29.02.2016 (Annexure 5)with  M/s HCL Service Ltd. and requesteda replacement.
7. The Complainant alleges that M/s HCL Services Ltd. refused to replace his mobile phone and instead repaired the phone, demanding Rs.7800/- to replacethe motherboard of his mobile phone. Having no other option, the Complainant sent emails to the manufacturer of the OP and the OP executives for replacement of the handset since, despite repairing the phone several times, the defect repeatedly cropped up on his phone,which was not functioning satisfactorily. The Complainant has annexed copies of emails and reminders as Annexure 6.
8. When the OP did not take any concrete action to resolve his grievances, the present complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The Complainant has prayed for direction to the OP to replace his phone or refund the cost of the said mobile phone, i.e. Rs.15,490/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred Ninety) with interest, Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Thousand) as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) for litigation charges.
9. Notice was issued to the OP, who filed their reply stating that undoubtedly the product in question carries a warranty of one year,and within the warranty period, OP would repair the product under the warranty acknowledgement (except damage)  and in case the warranty expires, then the product shall be repaired on chargeable basis. Hence, as per the warranty entitlement, the Complainant's phone was repaired and returned back to him after being duly repaired by the service centre of OP.
10. The Complainant approached the OP for the first time on 16.09.2015 regarding issues with the mobile. After examination by the service engineer, it was found that there was only a software problem in the handset, which was resolved by the OP technician as per warranty entitlement. The Complainant, however, demanded the product's replacement but was informed that the product could be repaired and, hence, was not replaced. The OP denied deficiency in service or manufacturing defect in the Complainant's mobile phone, stating that as per law, if a product can be repaired, the same does not need to be replaced.
11. Further, the OP stated that once the mobile was out of warranty, M/s HCL Services Ltd. repaired the phone and replaced the motherboard on chargeable basis; however, theComplainant refused to pay the replacement charges. Hence, the OP rendered its service to the Complainant every time the Complainant reported the problem without delay, and no deficiency in service could be made out tothe OP. Thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12. Thereafter, the Complainant has filed a rejoinder and affidavit in evidence reiterating his averment made in the complaint. The OP filed the affidavit of Anindya Bose, Authorized Representative of the OP, who also echoedthe statements made by the OP in reply. Both the parties filed their written arguments, and we have heard the Complainant in person on the date fixed for the final arguments. None appeared for the OP; hence, in the interest of justice, a short adjournment of 15 days was granted to the OP to address any oral final arguments in the present case.
13. We have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances in the present case and have also perused the documents annexed by the contesting parties.We have found that the Complainant has purchased a new Samsung Galaxy Grand Duos 19082 online with two flip cover bearing no. EMEI No. 355886055742699 from M/s Goel India Corporation vide order No. 4671068342. The mobile phone was delivered to the Complainant who paid cash on delivery. The invoice of the phone is annexed as Annexure 1 with the complaint.
14. The Complainant alleges that he has purchased the phone on 28.01.2015, which came with a warranty of one year and as per terms and conditions of the warranty, the manufacturer would replace the defects free of cost, but if the handset was irreparable in the warranty period, they would replace the handset with a new handset. The Complainant alleges that he had to deposit his phone several times to the OP service centre as his handset had multiple problems like SMS, automatic calls, battery life not long, display light problems, slow volume, poor camera quality, etc.
15. The Complainant has annexed the job card issued by the OP service centre for the repair that was undertaken on his mobile phone under warranty dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure 2), 28.09.2015 (Annexure 4), 29.01.2016 (Annexure5). The Complainant states that every time he deposited his phone under warranty to the OP service centre, he requested that it be replaced as it was not functioning correctly.But the phone was only repaired and handed back only to develop defects soon after.
16. When his handset became out of warranty, i.e. after one year, the Complainant was advised to approach M/s HCL Services Ltd. for the repair of his handset defect wherein the motherboard of his mobile was replaced, and Rs.7800/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Eight Hundred) demanded for the said replacement. In his affidavit filed to be read as evidence, the complaint states that his mobile phone has been with the service centre of M/s HCL Service Ltd. since 29.09.2016 as he did not pay the amount demanded from him for the replacement of the motherboard of his mobile phone.
17. In their testimony, the OP states that as per terms and conditions of the warranty, OP repaired the Complainant's phone every time the Complainant deposited his phone at their service centre, and their technician has repaired theComplainant's phone as stated by the Complainant himself. Since the Complainant's warranty lapsed when he deposited his phone in M/s HCL Services Ltd.,the charge of Rs.7,800/- was levied for the replacement of the part as per the terms and conditions of warranty issued towards the complainant handset.
18. In our view, it is clear from the job cards annexed by the Complainant to substantiate his claim that the Complainant facedconstant problems with his phone after purchasing the same on 28.01.2015. The Complainant faced a software problem after 8 months of use, i.e. on 16.09.2015.The Complainant again submitted his phone on 28.09.20215 for slow performance and software issues. A bare perusal of Annexure 4, which is the job card dated 11.10.2015, shows that the Complainant had noted on the job card that he was not satisfied with the repair undertaken by the OP.
19. The Complainant again deposited his phone on 29.02.2016, which means that the Complainant deposited his cell phone with the OP service centre atleast 3 times in a span of one year. After the warranty period for the mobile phone expired, the Complainant then deposited his handset with the M/s HCL Services Ltd. service centre, where the OP charged for the motherboard replacement.
20. The very fact that the motherboard of the Complainant's mobile was replaced is enough to clarify that there was undoubtedly some defect in the Complainant's handset, which the OP could not rectify so that the Complainant could use his new mobile phone to its utmost output. The OP could have easily replaced the motherboard within warranty, which they chose not to do for reasons best known to them. The Complainant would indeed have been harassed and suffered mental agony as his new phone was not working correctly.
21. Therefore, we find that this lackadaisical attitude of the OP is tantamount to deficiency in service and allow the present complaint. Thus, we hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) towards compensation for mental agony and harassment faced by the Complainant, including litigation costs.

• Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
• The file be consigned to Record Room.
• Announce in the open Court on 17.05.2024.