Delhi

New Delhi

CC/176/2014

Sh. Surender Kumar Kanodia - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Samsung India - Opp.Party(s)

05 Dec 2019

ORDER

 

 

           CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

 

CC. No./176/2014                                                                            Dated:

            In the matter of:-   

Surendra Kumar Kanodia

             S/o Late Sh. Brij Lal

         196-J, 2^nd floor, Ramesh Market,

          East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065                                     ..…..Complainant

Versus

1.        M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

F-26/3, Okhla Ind. Area Phase-2

New Delhi-110020

 

2.       M/s Pacetel Communication (P) Ltd.

C-59, Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar-2

New Delhi-110024.                                                            …… Opposite Parties

                                           

                                                        ORDER

            PRESIDENT- ARUN KUMAR ARYA

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Samsung GT-I9070 cellular hand set bearing IMEI no. 353019050072860 for a sum of Rs. 21,500/- on 25/05/2013. It is further alleged that mobile hand-set was not working properly which use to hang, switch off, no display on the screen, a very low battery and slow software the touch screen did not respond properly and promptly during making the calls.

On 19/07/2013 the complainant went to one of the service centre of OP no. 1 situated at Laxmi Nagar, Delhi for the rectification of problems where the OP-1 undated the phone and returned to the same to the complainant after 2 -3 days same problems were seen but complainant did not find any solution from the   OP-1. Further the complainant approached to OP-2 for the same problem on 03/02/2014 and OP-2 found some problem over there and issued job-sheet with the instructions to come same day in the evening accordingly the  complainant reached in the evening and OP-2 retuned the handset assuring the complainant that this time the phone would work.

It is further alleged that the same problems had been suffered by the complainant along with it one more problem arose with the calls, the out going calls did not respond, however, after few second it would suddenly jump to make calls and the phone was also gone to hold-mode during the middle of conversations. It is further alleged that the complainant did not find any solution of his problems and facing huge problems with the hand set in question, hence, this complaint.

OPs was noticed and both the OPs filed their written statement. It is submitted that there was no deficiency in the said mobile phone in question and the said hanging defect may arise in the product due to unauthorized downloading of software on the part of the complainant. It is further submitted the OPs companies does not cover software issues under warranty.

Both the parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit, we have heard arguments advance at the bar and perused the records.

The complainant had faced hanging problem, unnecessary switch off, no display on the screen, very low battery and slow software and the touch screen respond  problems with the hand set in question. Initially the complainant went to the OP-1 for rectification of his problem and OP-1 updated the hand set in question and returned back it to the complainant and the same problems were again faced by the complainant and he again approached OP-1 for the rectification of his problem but when nothing had been done, the complainant then approached to OP-2 for the same problems with the hand set in question but OP-2 was also not able to solve the same. Further, the complainant also faced problems during the outgoing calls. These defects with the hand set in question does not due to the unauthorized software downloads and it amounts to deficiency. We therefore hold both the OPs guilty of deficiency in services and directed as under :-

1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 21,500/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 26/02/2014, till payment.

ii)    Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation towards harassment, mental agony and pain which will also include the cost of litigation.

 

Copy   of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  parties  to   the    case    free  of     cost      as   statutorily    required. 

Announced in open Forum on  _05/12/2019_.

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

 

 

                                            (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                      PRESIDENT

 

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                           (H M VYAS)

      MEMBER                                                                        MEMBER