Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 434
Instituted on : 08.10.2020
Decided on : 12.04.2024
Ravinder age 28 years s/o Sh. Shiv Parsad R/o H.No.313, Type 1 Revenue Colony, Rohtak.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- S.G.Sales, Shop no.5-6, Matu Ram Bhawan, D. Park Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Manager/proprietor.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at 6th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its manager/proprietor.
- B2X Service Solution India Pvt. Ltd. Jain Mansion, HUDA Complex, Near Old Gymkhana Club, Rohtak-124001, through its manager/proprietor.
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.KunalJuneja, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.1 & 3 alreadyexparte.
ORDER
VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are he had purchased a mobile phone Samsung A70S from the opposite party no.1 for Rs.29000/-. There was defect in the mobile phone from the very beginning as it was having restart problem, display problem, hanging problem and software problem.The phone was deposited by the complainant with the service center but no job sheet was provided by the service center. Complainant requested the opposite parties many times to replace the mobile but the same was refused by the opposite parties. Complainant wrote first email on dated 08.01.2020 with reference no.3752532735 in which they told that their customer representative will get in touch within 24 hours but no one contacted the complainant. On 05.02.2020 the above said mobile was again submitted with same problems but they refused to issue job sheet. The act and conduct of the opposite parties of not repairing/replacing the mobile phone of the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of mobile phone amounting to Rs.29000/- and also to pay Rs.35000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint,notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 & 3 did not appear despite service through Process-Server of this Commission and as such they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.12.2020 of this Commission. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted thatopposite party has an online system to enter all claims/complaints vide IMEI/Sr. no. in each and every case but in the present complaint as per limited details mentioned in the complaint, no complaint number serial number of product or valid contact number has been provided by the complainant and for the reason, no details were found in the online system of the opposite party company which means that the complainant has never registered any complaint with any of the service enter of the opposite party. Hence there is no problem in the product and the present complaint has been filed just to grab benefits illegally from the opposite party. The complainant never visited to any service center of opposite party. Only some email conversations have been found in the system of opposite party with regard to the complaint and as per the emails opposite party responded the complainant via e-mails. But the complainant failed to share the details as required. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence on dated 12.01.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite party no.2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on 18.05.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, as per the written statement filed by the respondent the complainant has concocted a false and fabricated story because as per the record of the opposite parties, the complainant has not registered any complaint to the service centre of the opposite party. It is further submitted that the opposite party has an online system to enter all the claimsin the system and complaint vide IEMI/Sr. No.in each and every case. But in the case in hand, no such complaint has been made on the Sr. No. of the product of the complainant. It has been further submitted that complainant has not registered any complaint as there was no problem in the product of the complainant.
6. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. In this case respondent officials placed on record warranty card and 3 receipts issued by the Online Support Team of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., which are placed on record as Ex.R2 to Ex.R4. On the other hand complainant has placed on record the mobile bill Ex.CW1 and other complaints made through email Ex.CW/2 to Ex.CW/6 in the month of January 2020. As per complaint Ex.CW2, complainant had visited the customer care Samsung mobile at Rohtak on 09.12.19 and 07.01.20 for the problems in the mobile. As per Ex.CW3, 2nd complaint was made on 09.11.2020. As per Ex.CW4 and Ex.CW5, opposite party replied that their representative will contact the complainant within 24 hours. As per Ex.CW6 opposite party given the reference number to email of the complainant as 3752532735. The perusal of the above mentioned documents shows that complainant approached to the respondents regarding the issues mentioned in the complaint to the respondents but the same were not resolved. No one approached the complainant within 24 hours as assured by the Online Support Team of opposite party No.2. The main issue is that they have replied vide Ex.R2 to Ex.R4 but job sheet has not been issued by the respondents’ service centre. The job sheet should have been prepared by the respondent no.2 & 3 when the complainant approached them regarding the issues of the mobile in question. But neither the job sheet has been issued nor the mobile has been repaired within warranty period. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 & 3 and opposite party No.2 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deducting the 30% depreciationi.e to pay Rs.20300/-.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay the amount of Rs.20300/-(Rupees twenty thousand and three hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 08.10.2020 till its realisation. Opposite party No.2 is further directed to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on accountof deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
12.04.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
