Delhi

North East

CC/343/2015

Gurdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail - Opp.Party(s)

29 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No. 343/15

 

CORUM:-      Hon’ble President N.K.Sharma

                        Hon’ble Member Nishat Ahmad Alvi

                        Hon’ble Member Ms. Usha Khanna

 

In the matter of:

		Gurdeep Singh S/o Late Shri Chanan Singh 5/13, Sector-2, Rajender Nagar, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201005		Complainant
		Versus
	1.       2.         3.	Reliance Retail Ltd 1st Floor, Suncity Mall, Plot No. 29&31, CBD, Sahibabad, Delhi-92    Samsung Service Centre 0006277418-Janus Electronic 10C/246, Sector-10, Vasundhara Ghaziabad, U.P. 201012   Samsung Company Full Address Samsung Customer Satisfaction 2nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square Sector-43, Golf Course Road Gurgaon, Haryana-122002.		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		16.09.2015
			DATE OF DECISION     :		29.09.2016

 

Ms. Usha Khanna, Member:-

 

ORDER

 

1. Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he had purchased a Samsung Mobile No. SM-G355HZWDINS complaining serial No. RZ1FB17FX3V(356894063141010) on 28.12.2014 of Rs. 7999/- from OP1. Very first day of purchase complainant found manufacturing defect in it i.e. voice cracking issue during the incoming and outgoing calls. Next day complainant visited OP’s showroom and made his complaint. OP1 after checking the mobile returned it to the complainant saying that his mobile is OK but there is problem in network where he is using the said mobile. On 29^th December 2015 complainant visited at the service centre of Samsung –(OP2) and contacted with the engineer who did something with the mobile in front of him and assured him that the defect of mobile is rectified, he will not face this problem again because he had done some changes in the settings of mobile and not registered his complaint in their system . But again the same issue was started, arriving at the irr-respecting locations. So the complainant again visited at the service centre-OP2 and had told them about the problem of mobile then they kept the complainant’s mobile for 4 days and replaced the motherboard but the issue was not resolved.
2. Complainant again visited at service centre and again told the issue, OP2 again kept his mobile for 22 days and told him that they will inform him after rectification of the defect but nobody contacted him. Finally complainant contacted OP3 and told them the entire episode then a call made to their technical person who assured him to resolve his issue and intimate him that when he collect the mobile from the service centre, but there was no response neither from OP2 nor from OP3. Then he send an E-mail to Samsung Customer Care but they did not respond appropriately. Then after few days he again send E-mail to the CEO of the Samsung Company someone contacted him on behalf of the CEO office but he was putting pressure on him to collect the same mobile from their service centre. Establishing the deficiency in service on OP’s part complainant has prayed to direct the OP to pay:-

1. Cost of the mobile i.e. Rs. 7,999/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine) alongwith 18% interest.  
2. Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) towards mental agony of harassment suffered by him.
3. Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as cost of litigation to the complainant.

 

3. Notice of this complaint was served to OPs 1 to 3 but nobody appeared on their behalf therefore OPs were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 3.12.2015.
4. Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit alongwith relevant documents.
5. We also find an affidavit of evidence filed by OP2 and OP3.
6. Heard and perused the record.
7. In support of complaint complainant has placed on record i.e. Cash-memo of Reliance retail Ltd. Jobsheet issued by the service centre dated 1.5.2015, copy of the E-mail dated 20.6.2015 send to Samsung Customer support centre also a copy of the E-mail dated 20.6.2015 send to Samsung Customer Support centre.
8. Perusal of these documents shows that complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile of Rs. 7999/-(Rupees Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine) from OP1 and the very next day he found the defect of voice cracking in the handset. Copy of jobsheet dated 1.6.2015 filed by the complainant issued by OP1 also proves the defect in the handset as “voice cracking problem” with remark “pending for technical solution RRC”. A copy of E-mail to system acknowledge by the OP3 also proves the defect in the mobile.
9. In affidavit there is no rebuttal of the evidence placed on record by the complainant but only legal pleas that too without providing any supporting evidence for the same. 
10. On the basis of above findings and the above material is sufficient evidence in support of complainant’s case while OPs are not able to rebut complainant’s case. Hence, the evidence of the complainant remaining uncontroverted, stands proved. Thus in our opinion not only OPs No 2 and 3 are deficient in service but also that the mobile in question being not repairable was a manufacturing defect for which OP3 is liable to replace the same with renewing warranty after first complaint of defect.
11. Thus holdings guilty for the same we direct OP2 and OP3 to pay jointly and severally to the complainant:-

1. Either brand new mobile with fresh warranty or Rs. 7,999/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine) as cost of mobile with @9% interest from the date of purchase till the realization.
2. Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as compensation for harassment of mental agony suffered by the complainant.
3. Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as cost of litigation.

    

12. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

 

13. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 29.09.2016)   

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member

(Usha Khanna) Member