| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi – 110016 Case No.127/2021 M/S J.M. MANPOWER & SECURITY PVT. LTD. (THROUGH MR. P.P. SINGH AHLUWALIA, CEO /AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY) …..COMPLAINANT Vs. - M/S CONNEXIONS
(THROUGH OWNER MR. DEEPAK SETHI) - M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PRVIATE LIMITED
(THROUGH DIRECTORS MR. EUNGKYOSEO AND MR. GAUTAM SEHGAL) - M/S STAR MOBITEL LTD.
(THROUGH DIRECTOR MS. PRITI NANDA) - M/S QDIGI SERVICES LIMITED
(THROUGH DIRECTOR MR. SRINIVASAN GURUPRASAD) .…..OPPOSITE PARTIES Date of Institution-13.04.2021 Date of Order- 25.10.2024 O R D E R DR. RAJENDER DHAR-MEMBER Complainant has filed a present complaint seeking refund of the price of the premium mobile phone - Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (M.Gold) (Model#SM-F700FZDDINU/Serial#R38N301VD7L) purchasedfor an amount of Rs.1,15,999/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase or to direct OPs to provide a credit vouchers for the same amount or in alternative to replace the faulty Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (M.Gold) with new mobile phone, to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony, harassment, criminal breach of trust and proving deficient and poor services and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses. - It is stated that complainant purchased one premium mobile phone of brand Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (M.Gold) (Model# SM-F700FZDDINU/ Serial#R38N301VD7L) from OP1 on 24.05.2020 for an amount of Rs.1,15,999/- A copy of tax invoice is annexed as Annexure CW-1/1.
- It is stated that the cost of mobile phone was paid vide cheque by the complainant to OP1 and after encashment of the cheque, the physical delivery of the said mobile phone was taken by the complainant on 28.05.2020 from OP1.
- It is stated that after four months of purchase of the mobile phone, the screen/ display of the mobile phone went black. The complainant approached OP1 on 25.09.2020 and apprised the situation to OP1 and asked for replacement since the screen/display was going off which was a major defect/fault or to send to the authorized service centre of OP2 and get the fault rectified since the mobile phone was under warranty period i.e. upto 23.05.2021 from OP side.
- It is further stated that OP1 informed complainant that they were only the authorized sellers of OP2 and advised the complainant to approach OP2 directly for the replacement. However, since the mobile was under warranty of OP2 which is a authorized service centre and it could repair it free of charge.
- On 29.09.2020, complainant approached authorized service centre of OP2. The complainant was told by the staff that they were authrised service cenre of OP2 for mobile phones, but they were not authorized to handle premium mobile phones and guided complainant to call customer care number of OP2.
- The complainant contacted OP2’s customer care on 30.09.2020 and was directed to contact OP3 for phone repair. However, OP3 being just a collection point for OP2, was not authorized or equipped to handle the complainant’s phone model. This mishandling and misguidance by OP added to the complainant’s frustration and mental harassment, as customer care failed to guide them to the correct service centre capable of handling the issue.
- On the same day i.e. 30.09.2020, the complainant contacted OP2’s customer care again. The executive apologized for mistakably directing the complainant to the wrong service centre and provided the correct address of OP4, which was fully equipped and authorized to repair the complainant’s phone.
- On 01.10.2020, the complainant visited OP4 and was issued a job card for phone repair and went to one Mrs. Pathak, who wrongly stated that the phone was out of warranty. When questioned, no clear explanation was provided. The complainant stated that he will file a police complaint for fraud, prompting Mrs. Pathak to call the manger, Mr. Ritesh Kumar. The Manager apologized for Mrs. Pathak’s conduct and requested 3-4 days to resolve the issue but to no avail.
- The complainant repeatedly contacted customer care of OP2 regarding unresolved grievances, initially speaking with Mr. Aamir, who registered a complaint and assured a call back from senior staff, which never happened. After a few days, the complainant called again and spoke with Mr. Rishabh (customer care executive of OP2), who also registered a complaint and promised a response from the senior manager within 1-2 days, but no callback was received.
- On 19.10.2020, the complainant called OP2’s customer care again and spoke to Ms. Dimple, who was surprised that no senior staff had contacted the complainant. She promised to arrange a call from her manager within a day, though no complaint number was given. On 20.10.2020, Ms. Prerna Arora, Manager of Customer Experience, called the complainant, assuring assistance. She followed up with an email on 21.10.2020, stating that she needed time to consult the techical team and would update the complainant by 23.10.2020.
- It is further stated that the complainant shared a video clip from their mobile phone with Ms. Prerna Arora, Manager- Customer Experience of OP2, following the directions from the technical team at the head office of OP2. The video was shared via email on 27.10.2020. Copy of the email printout is annexed as Annexure CW-1/2.
- On 31.10.2020, after multiple attempts to resolve the issue, the complainant received a shocking email from Ms. Prerna Arora wherein it has been stated that:
“……….Samsung provides a free of charge repair during warranty period and the said warranty is considered void if the product is tempered due to improper usage within the warranty period.” “This is in line with the terms and conditions mentioned in our warranty card provided with every product at the time of sale. In this case, the consumer has to bear the expenses of the repair as once the product is tampered with, Samsung cannot assure the equated performance of the same product. Therefore, we request you to allow us to repair your unit on a chargeable basis. As such the total cost of repair would be Rs.42872.25/- shared by service centre or you can avail one-time screen replacement offer by paying Rs.9936/-. In conclusion, based on our discussion, we would not be able to cater your request for discounted or free of charge repair of your product.” The video clip shared by the complainant with Ms. Prerna Arora showed no signs of mishandling or tampering. However, warranty provided by OP2 is considered void if the product is found tampered due to improper usage within the warranty period. Copy of the email dated 31.10.2020 of OP2 and copy of warranty card of OP2 is annexed as Annexure CW-1/3 (Colly). - Feeling harassed, the complainant sent a legal notice on 20.10.2020, requesting either a replacement or reimbursement for the faulty phone (Rs.1,15,999/-) along with Rs.75,000/- for mental harassment and financial loss, plus 18% interest per annum. Copy of legal notice and tracking report are annexed as Annexure CW-1/4 (Colly).
- OP2 responded to the complainant’s legal notice on 11.12.2020, denying the claims, while OP3 and OP4 did not reply. The complainant believes that OP1 to OP4 conspired to sell a faulty phone, causing both mental harassment and financial loss. The complainant accused them of breaching trust and engaging in unfair trade practices, violating the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Copies of the replies by OP1 and OP2 with tracking report are annexed as Annexure CW-/5 (colly).
- Notice was issued to OP1 to OP4 vide order dated 07.05.2021. Several opportunities were provided to OP1, OP3 and OP4 but they did not file their written statement. Hence, the right to file written statement by OP3 and OP4 was closed vide order dated 13.10.2022 and OP1 right to file written statement was closed vide order dated 27.03.2023.
- OP2 in its written statement has denied all allegations of the complaint.
- OP2 has further submitted that it has a robust after sales service network with qualified personnel and a dedicated toll free helpline for customer assistant. It has further stated that the complaint is an abuse of legal process, suppressing key facts and making baseless allegations of service deficiency without evidence, accordingly, the complaint be dismissed with compensatory and exemplary costs in favour of OP2..
- OP2 has further stated that the complaint should be dismissed because the product was purchased by M/S. J.M. Manpower & Security Private Limited for commercial purposes. Therefore, the complainant does not falls under the definition as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- It is further submitted by OP2 that the complainant approached them after 4 to 8 months after purchasing the product, which had a damaged display caused by mishandling. Due to damage the warranty was denied and the complainant refused to pay the repair cost of Rs.42,872.25/-, demanded for repairs. OP2 offered a one-time screen replacement for Rs.9,936/- only as a goodwill gesture, but the complainant declined. OP2 maintained that the damage was due to the complainant’s mishandling and reiterated that repairs would only be done on chargeable basis, as per the warranty policy.
- It is further submitted by OP2 that whenever the complainant raised an issue, OP2 addressed it promptly and was willing to resolve any concerns. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP2. OP2 provided services to the complainant’s satisfaction, but the complainant, driven by greed, is seeking a refund and compensation based on false claim. The complainant does not fall under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as no manufacturing defect or service deficiency was proven. The allegations are frivolous and baseless, and the complaint should be dismissed with costs.
- Complainant has filed rejoinder qua reply filed by OP2. Complainant in his rejoinder has denied the contentions of reply of OP2.
- Complainant has filed evidence by way of an affidavit and has exhibited the following documents:
- Copy of the tax paid invoice is exhibited as Ex CW-1/1.
- Copy of the trailing email is exhibited as Ex CW-1/2.
- Copy of the email and warranty card are exhibited as Ex CW-1/3 (colly).
- Copy of the legal notice and tracking report are exhibited as Ex CW-1/4 (colly).
- Copy of the replies of OP1 and OP2 to the legal notice along with tracking report are exhibited as Ex CW-1/5 (colly).
- OP2 has also filed evidence by way of an affidavit and has exhibited the following documents:
- Copy of the tax invoice is exhibited as Exhibit OPW-1/A.
- Copy of the warranty policy is exhibited as Exhibit OPW-1/B.
- Copy of the Technical report is exhibited as Exhibit OPW-1/C.
- Pictures of the damaged device along with estimate letter are exhibited as Exhibit OPW-1/D and Exhibit OPW-1/E.
- Copy of the email is exhibited as Exhibit OPW-1/F.
- Copy of the reply to the legal notice is exhibited as Exhibit OPW-1/G.
- Both complainant and OP2 have filed their written arguments reiterating the same.
- The Commission has considered the contents of the complaint, written statement filed by OP1, evidence of both the parties and written submissions filed by the complainant as well as OP2 and other documents on record. The technical report clearly mentioned that the display of the mobile was blank with a line in centre of LCD.
- OP2 has also annexed photographs/ pictures stating that damage to a device was caused by the complainant.
- OP2 also filed photographs of the damaged set, but however nothing is mentioned that the set in question belongs to the complainant as mark of identification i.e. model number, make, or the customer's name has not been mentioned. The picture only shows some edge /corner of the phone which is seen encircled but this does not confirm that the set in question is the same which belongs to the complainant, hence, is not a conclusive proof of damage caused by the owner of the phone. It also appears that OP2 has tried to push the burden of causing dent on the complainant’s phone only to get out of warranty terms which provides that mishandling, misuse, damaging of the product is not covered during warranty period.
- It is also seen that despite providing repeated opportunities to OP1, OP3 and OP4, they preferred not to appear and defend the matter for the reasons best known to them.
- It is a fact that the complainant had purchased a high-end phone Samsung Galaxy Z Flip (M.Gold) (Model# SM-F700FZDDINU/ Serial#R38N301VD7L) and the phone had erratic functioning during warranty period and somehow it was not attended/ rectified by the OPs. It is also seen that a whooping amount of Rs. 42,872.25/- has been asked from the complainant as repair charges, which complainant rightly did not agree to pay. It is surprising to note further that after purchasing such a costly phone and if the consumer has to further shell out Rs. 42,872.25/- towards repair cost that too during warranty period, the same is totally unjustified, unreasonable and uncalled for.
- Under these circumstances and also taking a comprehensive view of the whole matter, this Commission is of considered opinion that ends of justice would be served if following directions are issued against OP:
- OP1 to refund an amount of Rs. 1,15,999/- towards the cost of the phone to the complainant along with 6% interest per annum from the date of purchase till its realization and complainant to return the mobile phone.
- OP2, OP3 and OP4 to pay Rs. 25,000 towards compensation and for causing mental agony, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant and for unfair trade practice,
- OP2, OP3 and OP4 to pay Rs. 10,000 towards litigation expenses.
- Order to be uploaded on website. File consigned to record room.
| |
