BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

Sh.Rajesh Kumar s/o Sh. Ved Parkash r/o H.No.501, Amarawati Enclave, Tehsil-Kalka, District Panchkula.

                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

Samsung, Authorized Service Centre, SCO No.62, First Floor, Swastik Vihar, MDC, Sector-5, Panchkula-134109.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ..….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member

Dr. Suman Singh, Member

For the Parties:   Sh. Satpal Ranga, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Ms. Jyoti, Advocate for the OP.

                                        ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.              The brief facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are, that the complainant had purchased a mobile set bearing no. SAMSUNG A910FEAN#, 8806088485676 IMEI No.322944081656574 vide bill no.C#60160832 dated 05.06.2017 amounting to Rs.26,900/-from the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as OP). The complainant approached the OP for getting the repair  of the said mobile set as the same was not working properly; the OP carried out the repairs and received a sum of Rs.6,914/- from the complainant as repair charges vide invoice no.12726 dated 20.06.2020. It is averred that again after 3/4 days, the complainant approached the OP for the removal of the defects in the said mobile set but the OP had raised an additional demand of Rs.14,000/- for carrying out the necessary repairs of the mobile set. The complainant did not give his consent to the said demand of Rs.14,000/- as raised by the OP and came back by leaving the mobile set at the OP’s service centre. It is averred that the OP is liable to refund the entire charges of Rs.6,914/- as received by it from the complainant for the repair of the mobile set. It is averred that when the grievances of the complainant were not redressed, he had to serve a legal notice dated 24.08.2020 to the  OP but no response was received from the OP. Due to act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, the OP appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement by raising preliminary objections that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the Commission. It is submitted that the mobile set was duly checked by the OP’s engineer but the same was found tempered with(outside repair) i.e. opened/checked in the market and the mother board of Handset was found damaged, so the set was not covered under the warranty conditions; hence, the complainant was offered the services on payment basis. It is submitted that no expert report has been made available by the complainant on record in order to prove his allegations qua any deficiency and imperfection on the part of OP. One year warranty was given and the hand set in question and the same was found tempered with. It is submitted that the complainant had approached the OP on 05.05.2020 i.e. after a period of approximate three years from the purchase of hand set and after checking of the hand set, the LCD and back glass of the same were found damaged/broken and the same were replaced and the hand set was returned back to the complainant after receiving the repair charges from the complainant. It is submitted that the OP is a service provider of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and provides services to the customers of Samsung India Electronics as per the standard warranty policy of the company and as per the said warranty, the OP provides one year warranty on the handset.

                On merits, the pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP; as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.             To prove the case, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavits Annexure R-A and R-B along with documents Annexure R-1 to R-8 and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant as well as OP and gone through the entire record available on the file including the written arguments filed by the complainant as well as the OP, carefully and minutely.

5.             During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit(Annexure C-A) and contended that the mobile set was repaired by the OP on payment of Rs.6,914/- as repair charges by the complainant vide invoice no.12726 dated 20.06.2020 (Annexure C-2) but the same was not  repaired properly and accordingly, after 3/4 days, the OP was requested to repair the same but an additional demand of Rs.14,000/- was raised by the OP for repairing the mobile set in question on the plea that the same was found tempered with i.e. got repaired from outside. It was argued that the additional demand raised by the OP for carrying out the repair of the set was wrong and invalid because the repair charges amounting to Rs.6,914/- had already been given to OP on 20.06.2020. It was argued that the mobile set in question is still lying with OP and thus, the complaint is liable to be accepted by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6.             On the other hand, the OP has contested the complaint on several grounds. The learned counsel on behalf of the OP, during arguments, has reiterated the averments as made in the written statement as also in the affidavits(Annexure R-A& R-B) and contended that the repair of the mobile set was not covered under the warranty conditions because the mobile set was found tempered with i.e. the same had been got repaired/checked outside in the market and the mother board was found damaged. It was argued that no deficiency of any kind in any manner is liable to be fastened upon the OP as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. It was further argued that no expert report is made available by the complainant on record in support of his contentions and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the following case laws:-

i.      Ramesh Chandra Agarwal Vs Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors. in AIR        2010 SUPREME COURT 806.

ii.       Stereocraft  Vs. Monotype India Ltd, New Delhi(2000, NCJ(59)(SC).

iii.      Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Susheel Kumar Gahgotra, (2006) 4 SCC     644.

iv.      Bharathi Knitting Vs.D.H.L. Worldwide, (1996) 4 SCC 704.

7.             Undisputedly, the mobile set in question remained in the custody of the OP for carrying out the repairs w.e.f. 15.05.2020 to 20.05.2020 and the same was returned to the complainant on 20.05.2020, after replacing its LCD and back glass. It is also not in dispute that a sum of Rs.6,914/- was taken by the OP from the complainant as repair charges vide invoice no.12726(Annexure C-2). Further, it is also beyond the pale of controversy that the complainant had visited the OP immediately after 3-4 days from 20.05.2020 seeking the removal of defects in the mobile set but the OP had raised the additional demand of Rs.14,000/- from the complainant for repairing the same.

8.             The complainant finding the additional demand of Rs. 14,000/-, as raised by the OP qua repair of the mobile set, being invalid and improper, did not give his consent and left the mobile set with OP, which is still lying in its custody.

9.             Pertinently, the complainant has claimed no benefit on the basis of any warranty conditions as given by the OP qua the mobile set.

                As per version of the complainant, the additional demand raised by the OP for making the payment of Rs.14,000/- qua repair of the mobile set was totally wrong and unjustified because he had already paid the amount of Rs.6,914/- to OP on 20.05.2020 vide invoice no.12726(Annexure C-2) as repair charges. The OP has raised the additional demand of Rs.14000/- to repair the mobile set only on the ground that the complainant had got repaired the same from some unauthorized shops/centre  and thus, denied to repair the mobile set taking the plea that the mobile set during inspection by its technical person, namely, Sh.Kuldeep Singh was found tempered with.

10.            No merits are found in the version of the OP because no such plea or issue like tempering of the mobile set as alleged was raised by the OP while returning the mobile set to complaianant on 20.05.2020 after taking a sum of Rs.6,914/- from him as repair charges. The job-sheet(Annexure R-1) is totally silent qua any such issue like tempering of the mobile set as alleged. As per job-sheet(Annexure R-1), the necessary repair was carried out by the OP’s engineer, namely, Sh.Kuldeep Singh, whose affidavit is available on record as Annexure R-B. The said engineer, namely, Sh.Kuldeep Singh vide his affidavit(Annexure R-B) is also silent qua the fact that he had found any unauthorized interference with the mobile set while the same was repaired by him during the period from 15.05.2020 to 20.05.2020. Even he has not uttered even a single word about any such issue like tempering of the mobile set as alleged, while the same remained in his custody from 15.05.2020 to 20.05.2020.  Thus, the plea taken by the OP that the mobile set was got repaired by the complainant from some unauthorized shop in the market is totally false and incorrect; accordingly, the same is rejected.

 11.           From the above narrated factual position, it is crystal clear that the demand raised by the OP for making additional payment of Rs.14,000/- for repairing the mobile set was neither proper nor  justified. Moreover, the mobile set is still lying in the OP’s custody for the last more than four years and no efforts, whatsoever, has been made by it to return the same after making the necessary repairs. Therefore, we hold that the OP was deficient, while rendering services to the complainant.

12.            In relief, the complainant has claimed the refund of Rs.6,914/-, which was paid by him as repair charges. Further, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment etc. Further, litigation expenses has also been claimed.

13.            As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP:-

1. To refund a sum of Rs.6,914/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum (simple interest) w.e.f. the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.

 14.           The OP shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced:16.09.2024

        Dr. Suman Singh                   Dr.Sushma Garg                Satpal

                        Member                     Member                     President

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

    Satpal

  President