District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.293/2021.

 Date of Institution: 15.06.2021.

Date of Order: 11.07.2022.

Raj Kumar Sehgal aged 47 years S/o Shri Devi Dass Sehgal R/o H.No. 2-G/19, NIT, Faridabad.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                Phonemart, SCO_147,  Main HUDA Market, Sector-21C, Faridabad through its Authorized Signatory.

2.                M/s. Simran Communication, Plot NO. 1-D, Ist floor, Fruit Garden, Railway Road, NH-V, NIT, Faridabad through its Authorized Signatory.

3.                Samsung SmartCafe, 20^th to 24^th floor, Two Horizaon Centre, Golf Course road, DLF, Phase-5, Sector-43, Gurugram, Haryana through its Authorized Signatory.

                                                                    …Opposite parties……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

PRESENT:                    Ms. Suita Malhotra, counsel for the complainant.

Opposite party Nos.1 & 2 ex-parte vide order dated 13.10.2021.

                             Sh.  K.S.Rathore, counsel for opposite party No.3.

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that   the complainant had purchased Samsung A31 6/128 batch 355743862360597 from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No. PM-0488 dated 12.07.2020 for a sum of Rs.21,000/-.  After one week of the purchase of the above said mobile phone the said mobile phone had started to crate problem as the said mobile phone was hanging very much and the same had turned off automatically.  Running apps of the above said mobile phones had automatically switched off and the said mobile phone was hearing very much.  Upon which the complainant had immediately contacted with the opposite party No.1, who had advised to the complainant to contact with opposite party No.2.  Thereafter the complainant visited to the office of opposite party No.2 and disclosed all the above said problems of the said mobile phone to the representative of opposite party No.2.  Upon which the said representative of opposite party No.2 had disclosed to the complainant that the said problem was a software problem and updated the software of the said mobile phone without issuing any job sheet/job card to the complainant  and assured the complainant that now the said mobile phone would do work properly.  After 7-10 days of time period the said mobile phone again started to create the same problems and thereafter the complainant again visited to the service center of the opposite party No.2 and they again updated the softward of the above said mobile phone and the said incident was taken place upto twice or thrice in a month..  After two months times period the said mobile created the new problem of non-charging.  Upon which the complainant visited to the office of opposite party No.2 and disclosed the said problem to the representative of opposite party No.2  At  that time the said mobile

phone was in running condition.  The representative of opposite party No.2 again updated the software of the said mobile phone and  also checked the said mobile phone physically.  The complainant waited for the said process upto 02-3 hrs. in the office of opposite party No.2 and lastly the representative of opposite party No.2 had disclosed to the complainant the motherboard of the said mobile phone had been damaged/dead and told to the complainant that now new motherboard would be inserted in the said mobile phone. Upon which the complainant asked about he time period of the said process, the representative of opposite party No.2 had disclosed that this process would take upto one week or 06 months times period as they had no mother board of said mobile phone’s model and their warehouse had also not mother board of the said model of mobile phone and submitted the mobile phone of the complainant vide job sheet No. 4310214801 dated 17.09.2020. As the opposite party No.3 was a renowned company in Electronics Items and it was shocked for the complainant that their service center had not mother board of the said model of mobile phone hence the complainant had sent a mail to opposite party No.3 on dated 17.09.2020 in which the complainant had mentioned the said fact.  Upon which the complainant had received a reply from the side of the opposite party No.3 in which they had given assurance to the complainant that his problem would be resolved on priority basis.  Thereafter the complainant had received another message from the side of opposite party No.3 in which they had disclosed to the complainant that problem of his mobile phone had been resolved and directed the complainant to visit the opposite party No.3 to collect his mobile phone.  Upon which the complainant visited to the office of opposite party No.2 and collected his mobile phone, which was in working condition. After two weeks times period the said mobile phone again

 crated problem of the same upon which the complainant again visited to the office of opposite party No.2 to resolve the said problem and every time the representative of opposite party No.2 had updated the software of the said mobile phone and assured the complainant that now the said mobile phone would not create any problem.  The visit of the complainant in the office of opposite party No.2 was twice or thrice in a month.  The complainant had suffered from the said problem upto 3-5 months but the complainant manage the same as the representative of opposite party N o.2 had given assurance to the complainant that the said problem would resolve within 2-3 months time period.  The complainant sent several mails to the opposite party No.3 vide which the complainant had requested the opposite party No.3 to resolve permanent problem of the said mobile phone by replacing the same with a new one as the said mobile was a defective piece and the said mobile had created several problem since last long times.  But the complainant did not receive any satisfactory reply from the opposite party No.3.The complainant sent mail to the opposite party No.3 vide which requested the opposite party No.3 to extend the warranty period of the said mobile phone and submitted the said mobile phone handset to the opposite party NBo.2 on the same date. On 18.04.2021 when the complainant had visited to the office of opposite party No.2 to collect  his mobile phone then the complainant got shocked and surprised to known that the opposite party No.2 had made complaint to the police by leveling false allegations.

                   On 07.05.2021 the complainant visited to the opposite party No.2 to collect the mobile phone but the opposite party No.2 clearly refused to deliver the said mobile phone to the complainant and also refused for resolving the problem of the said mobile phones, which was disclosed by the complainant at the time of

depositing the said phone on dated 23.04.2021. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:

a)                 refund the amount of Rs.21,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a from the date of purchase of the abovesaid mobile  phone i.e. 12.07.2020.

b)                 pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as travelling expenses form the office of opposite party No.2 to the house of the complainant and from the office of opposite party No.2 to the house of the complainant.

d)                 pay Rs.21,000/ - as litigation expenses .

2.                Registered notice issued to opposite parties Nos.1 &2 on 9.9.2021 not received back either serve d or unserved.  Tracking details filed in which it had been mentioned that “Item delivery confirmed”.  Mandatory period of 30 days expired.  Hence, opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 were hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.10.2021.

3.                Opposite party No.3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that   the services had been provided to complainant on every occasion and there was no defect found in the handset.  Infact, the complainant, in regards to complaint regarding the handset in question, approached to the service center of company on following occasions:

After that the complainant never submitted his handset with service center for any issued and thereafter, the answering company came to know about the present complaint.  From the above mentioned facts, it was very much clear that the services had been provided to complainant on each and every occasion and there was no defect in the handset.  Without any proof, the complainant had concocted a false story, without supported with any evidence. It was also submitted that answering company provided one year warranty on the handset, warranty means in case of any problem with the handset, the handset would be repaired or its parts would be replaced as per warranty policy and the warranty of the hand set was subject to some conditions and the warrant of the handset becomes void in the following conditions:

1.      Liquid logged/water logging.
2.      Physically damaged.
3.      Serial No. Missing.
4.      Tampering.
5.       Mishandling/Burnt etc.

Opposite party No.3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

5.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

6.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – Phonemart & Others with the prayer to : a)             refund the amount of Rs.21,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a from the date of purchase of the abovesaid mobile  phone i.e. 12.07.2020. b)                   pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c)  pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as travelling expenses from the office of opposite party No.2 to the house of the complainant and from the office of opposite party No.2 to the house of the complainant. d) pay Rs.21,000/ - as litigation expenses .

                   To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Maav Sehgal S/o Shri Raj Kumar Sehgal, Ex.C-1 – Tax invoice, Acknowledgement Service request, Ex. C-2& C3– Acknowledgement of service request, Ex.C-14 – QC Result pass,, Ex. C-5 – Acknowledgement of service request, Ex.C-6 – words message, Ex.C-7 to  C-14  emails..

                   On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.3  strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party, Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Sandeep Sahijwani working as General Manager, customer Satisfaction department with Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, Ex.R-1 – Warranty card, Ex.R-2 & R3 – Acknowledgement of service request, Ex.R-3 – photo while watching youtube temp., Ex.R-5 – Test case, Ex.R-6 – Final temperature Log dated 06.04.2021,, Ex.R-7   & R-8– QC Result pass,

7.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased Samsung A31 6/128 batch 355743862360597 from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No. PM-0488 dated 12.07.2020 for a sum of Rs.21,000/-.  After one week of the purchase of the above

said mobile phone the said mobile phone had started to crate problem as the said mobile phone was hanging very much and the same had turned off automatically. Lodging of several complaints to opposite parties personally as well as  emails vide Ex.C-7 to  C-14  emails ipso  facto go to prove that the mobile phone in question had a manufacturing defect which was not removed by the opposite parties.  As such, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence complaint is allowed.

8.                Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3, jointly & severally, are directed to refund the amount of Rs.21,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a from the date  of filing of complaint till its realization.   Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/-    as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs.1100/-    as litigation expenses.  Complainant is also directed to handover the old mobile phone to the opposite party. Compliance of this order  be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced on:  11.07.2022                                 (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.