CC No. 694/2016 Page 6 of 12
in 12.07.2016 and the complainant was shocked to see that it was with the same SIM card slot no.1 problem and no network in SIM card slot no.1 except call dialing and the complainant also mentioned on the job sheet that same network issue. Thereafter, the complainant again made calls at Samsung above said Customer Care with reference no. 8429891786 regarding issue of SIM card slot no.1 not yet resolved even after visiting 5 times to OP-2 and the complainant also raised the mail on 14.07.2016 at support.india@ Samsung.com with few screenshots regarding SIM card slot no.1 network issue and the complainant received the call again on 15.07.2016 at 5:05 P.M. by phone no.+911204028200 from OP-1 regarding visiting OP-2 again but the complainant refused to visit OP-2 again and the executive told to the complainant the case again sent to the higher authority for resolution and the complainant again received the call on 16.07.2016 at 7:25 P.M. by phone no. +911203921300 from OP-1, executive told to the complainant that your complaint will resolve on Monday positively. The complainant further alleged that the complainant has received the mail from OP-1 on 16.07.2016 at 8:12 P.M. regarding that the complaint issue has been forwarded to Higher Authority for resolution and the complainant has received the call from OP-1 on 18.07.2016 at 12:16 P.M. by phone no. +911246180800 from Mr. Ali and he told
CC No. 694/2016 Page 7 of 12
the complainant to again visit OP-2 for repair and the complainant refused the same and the complainant further alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund the cost of the mobile handset of Rs.13,499/- as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment.
3. OPs have been contesting the case of the complainant and filed their separate written statement/reply. OP-1 & OP-2 in their joint written statement submitted that the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 & OP-2. OP-1 & OP-2 further submitted that the complainant has purchased a Samsung Mobile handset from OP-3 in good condition and after having full satisfaction with the said product. The complainant has filed the present complaint without any cause of action just to extract money in form of compensation from OP-1 and the complainant has used the said mobile handset for a period of 9 months with complete satisfaction and never reported any issue to the OPs and it seems the mobile handset in question was working properly till 05.07.2016. OP-1 & OP-2 further submitted that the product in question carries a warrantee for a period of one year from the date of purchase and further submitted that as per the warrantee policy with in the warrantee period the
CC No. 694/2016 Page 8 of 12
company is liable to repair the product free of cost (except damaged parts) and incase the warrantee is violated or the warrantee period is expired then the same shall be repaired on chargeable basis paid by the complainant/customer. OP-1 & OP-2 further submitted that the complainant approached to OP-2 for the 1st time on 05.07.2016 and reported the issue of network with the said mobile handset and the said mobile handset was diagnosed and was found that the mobile handset was working properly and the reported issue was due to the network provided by the cellular company and the same was informed to the complainant and the complainant again approached to OP-2 on 21.07.2016 and reported the same issue of network and the said mobile handset was inspected and found the mobile was working properly and the reported issue was due to the network provided by the cellular company but the complainant was not ready to accept the said fact and adamantly demanded replacement with compensation which was denied by the OP-1 & OP-2 as per the warrantee policy.
4. OP-3 in its reply submitted that the complainant has purchased a Samsung J7 mobile handset (i.e. IMEI No.352840070134401) for Rs.13,499/- on 18.12.2015 from OP-3 and the complainant purchased the mobile handset in issue on a discount of 10% as per the promotional scheme of OP and the product in issue is
CC No. 694/2016 Page 9 of 12
manufactured by OP-1 i.e. Samsung India (P) Ltd. and all post purchase services rendered on the product in issue is the responsibility of its authorized service center.
5. Complainant filed rejoinder and denied the version of OPs.
6. In order to prove hiscase the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. Thecomplainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice dated 18.10.2015 of Rs.13,499/- issued by Flipkart.com, copies of job sheet dated 05.07.2016, 09.07.2016 & 11.07.2016 issued by OP-2, copy of Customer Information Slip dated 06.07.2016 issued by OP-2, copy of screenshot of messages sent by OP-2, copies of e-mail communications between the parties and copy of images of the mobile handset.
7. On the other hand, Ms. Anindya Bose,Authorized Representative of OP-1 & OP-2 and Sh. Anil Gupta, Authorized Signatory of OP-3 filed theirseparate affidavits in evidence whichare as per defence taken by OPs in the reply/written statement. OPs also filed written arguments.
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant as well asOPs in the light of evidence and documents placed on record. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and cannot be doubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. It is revealed that the complainant purchased the
CC No. 694/2016 Page 10 of 12
mobile handset for Rs.13,499/-. On perusal of the record, mobile handset suffered network problem i.e. SIM card slot no.1 which could not be rectified despite handing over the mobile handset at the authorized service center on various dates. It accordingly seems that there has been an inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. We accordingly hold OP-1 & OP-2 being the manufacturer & authorized service center of mobile handset guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.It is on record that the complainant has used the mobile handset for about 9 months.
9. In these circumstances, this forum is of opinion that the OP-1 & OP-2 are guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
10. Thus, holding guilty for the same, we direct OP-1 & OP-2 jointly or severally are as under:
i) To refund to the complainant the depreciated cost of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.6,500/- on return of the mobile handset, original invoice, job sheet and accessories.
ii) To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant which includes cost of litigation.
11. The above amount shall be paid by OP-1 & OP-2 jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-1 &OP-2 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of
CC No. 694/2016 Page 11 of 12
receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1 &OP-2 fail to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 25thday of March, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 694/2016 Page 12 of 12
