Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/62/2022

Kunal Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.S Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Anirudh

16 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                   Consumer Complaint No. : 62 of 2022

                   Date of Institution             : 28.03.2022

                                                            Date of Decision               : 16.05.2024

 

Kunal Bansal son of Sh. Rattan Lal, R/o Bag Kothi, Gali NO.2, Near Somvari Mata Mandir, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Manager, Samsung Mobile Authorized service center, S.S. Electronics, Circular Road, Opp. Bhatia, Near Dinod Gate Chowk, Bhiwani, 127021.

 

2.  Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, 6^th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

 

3.  Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited (Head Office) 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase-5, Sector 43, Gurugram, Haryana-122202.

….. Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 2019.

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Anirudh, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. Rajender Verma, Advocate for OPs No.2 & 3.

                    OP No.1 exparte.

 

ORDER

 

Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased a mobile phone Samsung F711 Galaxy Z Flip 3 in a sum of Rs.79,000/- on 31.10.2021 from Saugat Complex, Hisar. The mobile phone was having some problem, so complainant approached OP No.1. Complainant has alleged that the mobile phone slipped from the hand of person of service center and it created more problems including display system. On 24.02.2022, after a gap of 8 days, OP asked complainant about repair on making charges for it. The matter was brought into notice of Samsung Company but of no avail despite issuing of legal notice. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred alleging manufacturing defect in the product and deficiency in service on the part of OPs resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer has been made to issue directions to OPs to refund the cost of mobile phone alongwith interest, Rs.1.50 lac towards compensation for harassment besides litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Notices were sent to OP. OP No.1 did not bother to appear. As such, it was proceeded against as exparte vide order dated 03.03.2023.

3.                 OPs No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, locus standi, complaint bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, OPs denied for any manufacturing defect in the mobile set, however, without expert opinion, it cannot be ascertained that the product was having any manufacturing defect. On receiving complaint from complainant in the mobile phone, service engineer found the unit damaged (read broken), it was duly put to the knowledge of complainant that mobile phone is out of warranty due to physical damage  and as per warranty policy, the repair of the unit shall be on chargeable basis. As such, the OPs denied any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with heavy costs.

4.                 Learned counsel for complainant tendered in evidence documents Annexures C-1 to Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence.

5.                 On the other side, Ld. Counsel for OPs No.2 & 3 tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.R1/A & Ex. R1/B of Sh. Sunil Cutinha and Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Engineer respectively on behalf of OPs alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R10 and closed the evidence.

6.                 We have heard learned counsels for the contesting parties and perused record carefully.

7.                 From purchase bill (Annexure C-2), it is clear that complainant purchased the mobile phone in question in a sum of Rs.79,000/- on 31.10.2021. From job sheet dated 16.02.2022 (Annexure C-3) it reveals that the mobile phone occurred some problem within its warranty period. But the OPs denied its service within warranty period because of dent in rear and display broken. With regard to broken of display, complainant has given explanation in the complaint supported with affidavit that the mobile phone was slipped from the engineer of service center while it was given for rectifying defects in the mobile set. We have also perused the entire record produced on case file from the OPs side.

8.                 After hearing learned counsels for the parties and going through the record, it is observed that the mobile phone occurred some defect(s) within its warranty period but the OPs denied its service rather demanded charges for the same.  Thus the OPs No.2 & 3 are deficiency and negligent in provided proper service to the complainant as well as has adopted unfair trade practice.  Such act of OP amounts to deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss besides mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence, the complaint is allowed and OPs No.2 & 3, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To refund Rs.79,000/- (Rs.Seventy nine thousand) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization subject to return of the mobile phone in question by complainant, if in his possession.

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) to the complainant as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OPs No.2 & 3 shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.         

Announced.

Dated:16.05.2024.