BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.2 of 2016
Date of Instt. 04.01.2016
Date of Decision :21.12.2016
Rajat Chopra S/o Sh. Pawan Chopra R/o NB-266, Luxmi Pura, Jalandhar, Age. 28.
..........Complainant
Versus
M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., (Registered Office), A-25 Ground floor, Front Tower, Mohan co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044, through its Managing Director/General Manager/Manager/Representative.
M/s Shabd Enterprises, (Samsung authorized Service Centre), Opposite Hotel International, Near Bus Stand, Jalandhar, through its Manager/Representative/Owner.
M/s Savex Computer Ltd., No.755/9, 13th cros, jayanagar, 7th block, Banglore, through its Manager/Representative/Owner/Partner.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Kewal Krishan Gupta, Adv. Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Vishal Chaudhary, Adv. Counsel for opposite Party No.1 and 2.
Sh. Subhash Sharma, Adv. Counsel for opposite Party No.3.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The present complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant ordered a mobile hand set model No.SM-G90014G LTE Gold Samsung (Samsung Galaxy S5) to the opposite party No.3, who is a online store running by the opposite party No.1. The ordered handset delivered to the complainant on 09.12.2014 at his residential address at Jalandhar alongwith invoice NO.BLRON141545135, dated 05.12.2014. The said product was covered with a complete warranty of one year from the date of delivery. After few months, the complainant found that the above said mobile phone is not working properly and causing problems related to Wi-Fi, Hanging, Slow Processing, Auto Switch Off, Poor Battery backup then the complainant complained the matter to the opposite party No.2, after the preliminary checking of the mobile phone the employee/engineer of the opposite party No.2 found that it is not working properly and causing many problems related to Wi-Fi, Hanging, Slow Processing, Auto Switch Off, disconnection of Internet then engineer of the opposite party No.2 informed the complainant that the same is not properly repairable but he can try to rectify the same. In that event mobile phone along with batter was taken into custody by the engineer/employee of the opposite party No.2 and a job sheet/customer service report bearing No.4201651231 dated 22.09.2015 issued to the complainant. As per the assurance made by the opposite party No.2, the complainant visited the office of the opposite Party No.2 and demanded his mobile phone back and after taking the delivery of the same, the employee of the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that the mobile phone is rectified, now it is working efficiently. On the request of the employee/engineer of the opposite Party No.2,the complainant signed on the job sheet and received his handset under protest.
2. Again after few months, the complainant found that the above said mobile phone is not working properly and causing Network problem, slow processing, poor battery backup etc. then the complainant complained the matter to the opposite Party No.2, after the preliminary checking of the mobile phone the employee/engineer of the opposite party No.2 again found that it is not working properly and causing many problems. In that event mobile phone along with battery was taken again into custody by the engineer/employee of the opposite Party No.2 and a job sheet /customer service report bearing No.4202363996 dated 06.10.2015 issued to the complainant and after few days as per the commitment, the handset delivered to the complainant, but, when the complainant checked it in the premises of opposite Party No.2, he found that the mobile phone is not working properly and automatically switched off in his hand, then the complainant complained the employee/engineer of the opposite Party No.2, then he told the complainant that “this problem is temporary and the mobile phone will starts working properly within one or two days” on the assurances of the employee/engineer of the opposite party No.2 the complainant received his handset under protest from the opposite Party No.2 and returned back. After few days when mobile phone of the complainant not started working properly again causing slow processing, signal problem, poor battery backup, slow application processing and hanging, then once again employee/engineer of the opposite party No.2, taken the mobile phone alongwith battery and again issued a job sheet/customer service report bearing No.1438 dated 01.12.2015 and assured the complainant that he will rectify the same in a very short period. As per assurances of the employee/engineer of the opposite party No.2 the complainant again visited the office of the opposite party No.2 and demanded his mobile phone back, then another employee of the opposite party No.2 handed over the same to the complainant. The complainant again checked it in the premises of the opposite party No.2 and then he again found that all the problems were present in the mobile phone and no work/repair has been done on the same. After that the complainant refused to take the delivery of faulty handset from the opposite party No.2. All the opposite parties knowingly and vexatiously harassed the complainant. The opposite parties No.1 to 3 have supplied faulty mobile phone to the complainant knowing fully well that the mobile phone having inherent manufacturing defects and the opposite party No.2 has provided negligent and deficient services to the complainant within the warranty period. The act and conduct of all the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and it is a great negligence and deficiency in services on their part and as such necessity arose to file the complaint with the request that the complaint of the complainant may be allowed and the opposite parties be directed to refund the purchase price of the mobile phone i.e. Rs.25,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and to pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.15,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties and accordingly opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant as per the record has purchased the handset on 05.12.2014 and submitted his handset to OP No.2 for first time on 22.09.2015 after more than 9 months of purchase with problem of Hang on Apps. This shows that there is no inherent defect in the handset. As complainant is concealing true facts from this Forum he is not entitled for any relief. It is further submitted that the complainant intentionally with ulterior motive has now filed the present complaint alleging totally false facts and concealing true facts from this Forum. The liability of the answering OP is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in warranty card supplied with the product at the time of sale. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irrepairable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert. On merits it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the mobile with one year warranty but the remaining allegations made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed the complaint of the complainant may be dismissed.
4. Opposite party No.3 appeared through his counsel and filed its separate reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that opposite party No.3 is only a supplier of Samsung brands of mobile sets. Even there are no allegations and averments made against the opposite party No.3 by the complainant for deficiency of service and as such the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove the claim of the complainant, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C1 i.e. invoice and Ex. C2 to Ex.C8 i.e. Job Sheets and then closed the evidence.
6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Anindya Bose Ex. OPW1/A alongwith document Customer Details-cum-Warranty Card Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 and 2. Similarly, counsel for the opposite party No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunil Kumar Ex.OP3/A and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.3.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. In nutshell the case set up by the complainant that he purchased a mobile handset model No.SM-G90014G LTE Gold Samsung (Samsung Galaxy S5) from opposite party No.3 for an amount of Rs.25,000/- and invoice was issued by the opposite party No.3 which is Ex.C1 but after some time the mobile set started giving problem qua Wi-Fi, Hanging, Slow Processing, Auto Switch Off, Poor Battery backup and there upon the complainant approached to the service centre i.e. opposite party No.2 who took the mobile set and issued job sheet dated 22.09.2015 but mobile set was not properly working and necessity arose to again approached the service centre who took the mobile set and issued job sheet dated 06.10.2015. Similarly third time engineer of the opposite party No.2 took the mobile phone and issued job sheet dated 01.12.2015 and since 01.12.2015 the mobile set has not been repaired by the opposite party nor any information was given except during pendency of the instant complaint. Counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 suffered the statement on 01.09.2016 that the mobile handset of the complainant is fully repaired and in proper working condition and he want to deliver the same to the complainant but the complainant refused to receive the mobile phone after gap of 10 months and as such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
9. On the other hand, the counsel for the OP No.3 stated that the OP No.3 having no role in selling of defect mobile rather he is only supplier of Samsung brands of mobile phones and as such there is no liability of OP No.3 whereas opposite parties No.1 and 2 alleged that there is no inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile set rather the mobile phone is repaired but the complainant himself did not turn up to get the same of the mobile for the best known reason and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 and 2.
10. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and find that the purchase of mobile phone is admitted by all the OPs rather the complainant has brought on record copy of invoice Ex.C1 which shows the complainant purchased the mobile phone for amounting of Rs.25,000/- on 05.12.2014 and its warranty period is one year but during that period the mobile phone giving trouble/problem and these factum is very well established by bringing on the file copy of job sheet dated 22.09.2015 Ex.C5 and then again deposit the mobile set in a faulty condition with opposite party No.2 on 06.10.2015 and job sheet is Ex.C7 and then again third time deposit the mobile set in faulty condition with opposite party No.2 on 01.12.2015 and job sheet is Ex.C3. If we took into consideration the above job sheets i.e. Ex.C5, Ex.C7 and Ex.C3 then there remains no doubt that the mobile set purchased by the complainant was creating trouble for the complainant repeatedly, it means there is inherent manufacturing defect, otherwise it is not required to go again and again with the service centre of the Samsung Company. In this case the complainant has approached to the service centre thricely but despite that the defect was not cured and the mobile set was retained by the opposite party No.2 from 01.12.2015 till the date when it was produced on in this Forum on 01.09.2016 i.e. after lapse of 10 months. So, it means there is negligence in service on the part of OPs. To face the consequences of the negligence and deficiency of opposite parties. If the mobile set was repaired immediately i.e. 01.12.2015 then why any telephonic call or letter was not sent to the complainant for collection of mobile phone which shows that the opposite party No.2 had retained the mobile set without any reason and rhyme and accordingly we come to the conclusion that the opposite parties are negligent and there is deficiency of service and as such the complainant is entitled for the relief.
11. As an up shoot of our above detail discussion the complaint of the complainant succeeds and same is partly accepted to the effect that the complainant is entitled to get refund the price of Rs.25,000/- and accordingly OPs are directed to refund the price of the mobile set Rs.25,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% from the date of purchase till realization and further OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and further directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of order. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
21.12.2016 Member President
Rajat Chopra Vs. M/s Samsung India and Others.
Present: Sh. Kewal Krishan Gupta, Adv. Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Vishal Chaudhary, Adv. Counsel for opposite Party No.1 and 2.
Sh. Subhash Sharma, Adv. Counsel for opposite Party No.3.
Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of today, the present complaint has been partly accepted. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
21.12.2016 Member President
