BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.70 of 2019
Date of Instt. 11.03.2019
Date of Decision:19.05.2022
Vinay Sharma son of Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma r/o House No.179, Opp. Hotel Kamal Palace, Civil Line, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. R. B. Enterprises, C/o Bahri Electronics, Central Town Market, Jalandhar through its Managing Director/Prop./Partner.
2. Shadb Enterprises, 201-202, Upper Ground Floor, Palam Rose, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.
3. Samsung Authorized Service Centre, New Enterprises, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jalandhar through its Manager.
4. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor, Tower C Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon- 122002, Haryana through its MD/Director/Authorized Representative.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Sumit Sharma, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
OPs No.1 & 3 exparte.
Sh. Vishal Chaudhary, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.2 & 4.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant has purchased a Mobile Samsung A7 2017 IMEI No.357061080267272 from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.28,900/- vide Invoice No.T-1331 dated 20.07.2017. At the time of purchasing the above mentioned mobile, complainant was fully assured by the OP No.1 that the above mentioned mobile is good for its value and without any defect. It is also assured that there is a warranty of ONE year from the date of purchase of mobile set. It is also assured to the complainant that in case of any defect in the mobile set, then the handset will be replaced to the complainant. From their authorized service centre and in case the mobile suffered from incurable defect then the said mobile will be replaced or refund. The OP No.1 is dealing in Samsung for its sale in India through their authorized dealers and OP No.2 and OP No.3 are its authorized service centre/company official complaint centre. The OP No.4 is manufacturer of Samsung Mobiles. After purchasing the above said mobile from OP No.1, the handset was not working properly and after some time the mobile was not working properly, moreover, the display of mobile was not properly working, the mobile phone has hanging problem and battery of the above said mobile was also not working properly and the complainant found it very difficult to use the mobile and network is also not working properly, so it is very difficult to call any person from the phone which is the main benefit of mobile phone. The complainant has charged so many sim cards in the mobile phone, but the problem was not solved. Moreover, the handset has not shown the network properly. After observing the same complainant immediately reported to OP No.1 and submitted his complaint and requested to replace the mobile because the mobile was under warranty but he flatly refused to replace the mobile in spite of number of request made by the complainant and told the complainant to visit the office of OP No.2 i.e. authorized service centre. The complainant made the complaint to the OP No.2/authorized service station on 14.05.2018. After that the complainant visited the office of OP No.2 and reported the problem in the handset to the engineer of the OP No.2 and then the Engineer advised the complainant to book his handset and as per the advice, the complainant has booked his handset on 14.05.2018 and told the complainant to collect the handset after two days and then at the time of delivery of the handset the engineer assured that now the handset is OK and free from all the defects which were reported by the complainant and the complainant as per assurance received the handset. After 2-3 days, the handset was again giving same problem and the complainant again visited on 22.05.2018 and engineer checked the handset and book the same and issued the job sheet on 22.05.2018 and after around two days the complainant went to the office of OP No.2 to collect his handset and OP No.2 again assured the complainant that there is no defect in the said mobile as they repaired the same after giving job sheets then the complainant frequently visited OP No.2 to receive the mobile. Thereafter complainant got his mobile back but after one week, the mobile showed same problem and complainant again visited OP No.2 and the OP failed to solve the problem nor the OP refund the price of the mobile. The OP is bound to remove the defective mobile under the warranty period, but the OP has failed to do so. This illegal act and conduct of selling the defective mobile to the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice and also amounts to deficiency and negligence for services on his part as the OP has further failed to replace his defective mobile and gave false reports to the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.28,500/- as cost of mobile of the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- expenses on account of fee of Rs.5000/- paid for making complaint, postal expenses and expenses of copying, typing and stationery etc.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OPs No.1 & 3 failed to appear and ultimately, OPs No.1 & 3 were proceeded against exparte, whereas OPs No.2 & 4 appeared through its counsel and filed its joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions thereby enabling the complainant to enrich him at the cost of answering respondent by filing frivolous claim. The complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal on this ground alone. The handset has been mishandled by the complainant leading to problem of hanging and network. As the handset was under warranty the reported problem in the handset was duly rectified to the satisfaction of complainant on 14.05.2018 and 22.05.2018 and delivered back in OK condition on both occasions. After 22.05.2018 complainant has not reported any kind of problem in his handset till today. The handset was duly rectified and delivered to complainant in OK condition. It is further averred that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. The answering respondent has unnecessarily been impleaded as party to the present complaint. No cause of action arose to complainant to file the present complaint against the answering respondent. The complainant is not entitled for any relief from the Commission as he has concealed the true and material facts. The complainant has not come before the Commission with clean hands. The mobile handset in question has been mishandled by the complainant leading to problem of hang and network on both the occasions. However, the product was under warranty and the reported problem was duly rectified free of cost to the satisfaction of complainant. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act as the present complaint is gross abuse of the process of law and is totally false and frivolous. The handset in question has been alleged to be purchased on 20.07.2017 and till date handset has been submitted with OP No.2 for the first time on 14.05.2018 after 10 months of purchase and extensive usage. In the present case the mobile has been physically mishandled leading to problems. But complainant intentionally with ulterior motive has now filed the present complaint alleging totally false facts. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of mobile handset by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. It is proved on the record, vide Ex.C-2 that the mobile phone Samsung A7 2017 was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1, after making payment of Rs.28,900/- on 20.07.2017 and there is a warranty of one year i.e. upto 20.08.2018. The complainant has alleged that after sometime the mobile was not working properly and the display of mobile was not working properly and there was a problem of hanging and battery also. Despite changing the sim card number of times, the problem persisted. Service request was sent by the complainant and acknowledgment of service request has been proved as Ex.C-3 showing the problems ‘network issue, lost signals + hanging issue and sometime battery drain’. The document Ex.C-3/Ex.R-2 is dated 14.05.2018 and the handset was purchased by the complainant on 20.07.2017. Again the service request was made as the mobile did not work properly even after the repair, vide Ex.C-3/Ex.R-2. Ex.C-4/Ex.R-3 is acknowledgment of the service request, which again show the problem of ‘network drop + battery drain’. Again, it has been mentioned that repair completed. Ex.C-4/Ex.R-3 shows that the problem remained the same even after 8 days of repair. The problem was not solved by the OPs. The complainant again visited the OP, but his complaint was not redressed.
7. The OPs have not proved on record that the handset was mishandled by the complainant as alleged by the OPs in their written statement. It has not been proved on record by the OPs that the complaint of the complainant in the mobile phone of hanging of the mobile and for non-play of display was due to mishandling of the set by the complainant. It has not been proved on record as to why the defect has occurred in the mobile time and again, despite the repair by the OPs as alleged and shown in the job sheet Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3/Ex.R-2. It has been proved that the mobile purchased by the complainant was within warranty as per Ex.R-1. It has also been proved that despite the repair number of times, the problem subsisted. This proves that there is inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. Thus, the complainant has proved that the handset was having manufacturing defect. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.
8. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed either to replace the mobile handset with the latest model. If the mobile opted by the complainant is of more value than the original one, the complainant shall pay the remaining amount. The OPs can also issue voucher of the same amount of mobile to the complainant, if the complainant opts so. The complainant shall return the mobile handset to the OPs at the time of replacement. The OPs are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3000/- for causing mental tension, pain, agony, physical inconvenience and harassment to the complainant and the OPs are further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
19.05.2022 Member Member President
