Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/204/2022

VIVEK SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

 

                                             RBT/Complaint Case No. 204/22

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

 

	Sh. Vivek Sharma S/o Sh. Prakash Veer Sharma R/o A-71/1, Raja Vihar, Sameypur Badli, Delhi-110042	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon Sector-43 Haryana   Wecare Samsung Service Centre Sector-7, Rohini Delhi-110085	Opposite Party No.1         Opposite Party No.2

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

18.01.18 16.03.23 27.04.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant           

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 10.05.17 Complainant purchased a mobile for a sum of Rs. 16,900/-. After some days of purchase, it started to show some issues like blinking and brightness started increasing automatically. The Complainant visited Opposite Party service centre several times but they informed that there are no issues in mobile phone in question. The Complainant also lodged complaint to Opposite Party company via calls and email but all in vain. The company’s representative informed Complainant to contact service centre of Opposite Party and closed the complaint at their end. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed to get his phone repaired or replace without any cost as the phone is well within the warranty period.  
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 neither any written statement has been filed on its behalf. 

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

3. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant had purchased one Samsung J-7 on 10.05.17 for an amount of Rs. 16,900/- in good and sealed packed conditions after having full satisfaction with the said product. It is submitted that the product in question carries a warranty for period of one year and as per condition of warranty, replacement of the product or refund is expressly excluded and warranty covers only repair or replacement of any part thereof which needs replacement or repair for any reason of defective workmanship or defective components, which makes it clear that when there is defect in a part, it shall only be repaired and/or replaced by the Opposite Parties. Further, in case of damage, the product can only be repaired on chargeable basis paid by the consumer.
4. It is submitted that the Complainant visited Opposite Party No.2 on 26.09.17 and reported that there was some problem with the handset. That mobile handset was thoroughly examined and it was found by the technician that the handset in question was functioning properly and hence no problem/defect was found by the technician as alleged in the complaint and the Complainant was informed of the same. It is submitted that the Complainant further approached the Opposite Parties numerous times via mails and each and every time, the Opposite Parties duly responded to the Complainant. Further, the Complainant visited the Opposite Parties on 06.10.17 and 13.10.17 with same problem. That the mobile handset was examined again and that no defect was found and the mobile handset was handed over to Complainant, which has been duly confirmed by the Complainant through Customer Service Request document in which Complainant has admitted that “I confirm that I have receive my product in good working condition and to my full satisfaction” under declaration and same is verified and signed by the Complainant. It is further submitted that the Complainant has not attached any documentary proof supporting the averment that the handset in question is defective. 
5. It is submitted that every time that the Complainant has approached the Opposite Party, the handset was thoroughly examined by an authorized engineer but no defect was found. It is also submitted that the Opposite Party was and is always ready to provide services to the Complainant regarding the alleged handset as per warranty policy.
6. Hence, there is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice being established against the Opposite Party No.1.
7. That the complaint filed by the Complainant does not fall within the definition of a “consumer dispute” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the Complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the product in question nor any deficiency in service on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1. Hence, the averments and/or allegations made therein are frivolous, baseless and misconceived and the complaint is liable for rejection and the same may kindly be dismissed with costs.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1

8. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.1 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

9. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

10. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Shri Anup Kumar Mathur, AR of the Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

11. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased a mobile on 10.05.17 for a sum of Rs. 16,900/- from Opposite Party No.1. After four months of purchase, issues like blinking and brightness started increasing automatically. The Complainant visited Opposite Party service centre for rectification/ problem in the mobile phone but representative of Opposite Party informed him that there is no issue in the said mobile phone. It is alleged by the Complainant that in spite of phone is having problem, representative of Opposite Party close the complaint on their end. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties.
12. On the other hand the Opposite Party No.1 admitted that Complainant had purchased a mobile phone in question and same was supplied to him in good condition. It is also admitted by the Opposite Party No.1 that Complainant reported same problem with the mobile phone on 26.09.17 and the said mobile phone was examined and it was found by the technician that the mobile phone in question was functioning properly and hence no problem/defect was found by the technician as alleged  by the Complainant. It is further submitted by Opposite Party that the Complainant again visited the Opposite Parties on 06.10.17 and 13.10.17 with same problem. The mobile handset was examined again and no defect was found and the mobile handset was handed over to Complainant, which was duly confirmed by the Complainant through Customer Service Request document in which Complainant has admitted that “I confirm that I have receive my product in good working condition and to my full satisfaction” under declaration and same is verified and signed by the Complainant. It is also the case of the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant has not attached any documentary proof supporting the averment that the mobile phone in question is defective. It is also submitted by the Opposite Party No.1 that Opposite Party No.1 was and is always ready to provide services to the Complainant regarding the alleged

 

mobile phone as per warranty policy. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1.

13. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of Sushila Automobiles vs. Dr. Birendra Narain Prasad and others 3 2010 CPJ 130 (NC) held as under:  

      “At the very outset, it may be stated that to establish the claim for the total replacement by a new vehicle, the Complainant has to prove be cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of an expert automobile/mechanical engineer that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this commission in a number of cases have held that unless this onus is satisfactrily discharged by the Complainant, the liablity of the manufacturer would be limited to removal of the defect and/or replacement of the parts.”

 

14. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC, the Complainant did not provide any material/ evidence regarding mal functioning or manufacturing defect in the said mobile phone. In our considered view, there is no deficiency of service on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
15. Order announced on 27.04.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President