Haryana

Panchkula

CC/54/2015

VINOD KUMAR BISHNOI. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG CUSTOMER SATIFICATION & OTHERS. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

14 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	54 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	18.03.2015
Date of Decision	:	14.08.2015

                                                                                            

Vinod Kumar Bishnoi s/o Sh.Bhajan Lal, aged 30 years, R/o House No.2078, Sector-15, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Samsung Customer Satisfaction, 2^nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, through its Manager.

2^nd Registered Address

Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area Delhi-110044.

2. Sold by Sundaram Infortech, Prathamesh Complex, Building No. H, Opp. Vatika Restrorant, Mumbai-Nasik Highway No. 3, Bhiwandi by pass Road, Bhiwandi-421302 Maharastra (India).
3. Samsung Service Centre, SCO No.217, First Floor, Sector-14, Panchkula.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Coram:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, authorized representative for the complainant.

              Mr.Puneet Tuli, Adv., for the OPs No.1 and 3.

OP No.2 already ex-parte. 

 

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that the complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy Trend GT-S7392 Mobile online order ID No.40423478954868350 bearing EMI No.359708053986977 vide invoice No.MH-BOM1-138329331-32259 (Annexure C-1) dated 09.07.2014 from the Op No.2 for a sum of Rs.6400/- with a warranty of one year. But the mobile phone was not getting the signal. The complainant contacted the OP No.1 who advised to hand over the mobile phone to Op No.3-Samsung Service Center for repair. On 01.11.2014, the complainant submitted the mobile phone to OP No.3 vide bill No.41844244349 (Annexure C-2). The complainant approached many times to the OP No.3 but they did not resolve the problem and they were saying that there was no defect in the mobile phone. Sometimes, there was no signal for 5-6 hours in the mobile phone but when the complainant restarted the phone, it got signal. As per advice of Op No.3, the complainant got checked the mobile phone from Vodaphone and Airtel etc. but the problem still there. The complainant suffered a lot due to non-facility of the mobile phone for a long time. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. In reply, the Ops No.1 and 3 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Ops have never refused to carry out any repairs or checking of mobile set. It is submitted that the Ops still ready and willing to carry out necessary repairs by considering the mobile phone within the warranty period. It is submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile set. It is submitted that the onus is on the complainant to show that there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile phone. It is submitted that the software was reloaded. It is submitted that the signal is of the service provider which might be dependent upon several conditions including strength of the mobile. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops No.1 & 3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Notice was issued to the Op No.2 through registered post but none has appeared on behalf of the OP No.2. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.04.2015.
4. The authorized representative for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A  alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops No.1 and 3 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure OP1/A and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard authorized representative for the complainant and learned counsel for the Ops No.1 and 3 and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. The sale of a Samsung Galaxy Trend GT-S7392 Mobile bearing EMI No.359708053986977 vide invoice No.MH-BOM1-138329331-32259 dated 09.07.2014 from the Op No.2 for a sum of Rs.6400/- vide order No.40423478954868350 with a warranty of one year (Annexure C-1) is admitted.
7. The main grouse of the complainant is that the mobile phone was not getting the signal. The complainant contacted the Op No.3 to resolve the problem and submitted his phone. After some days, the Op No.3 returned the mobile phone by stating that there was no defect but the problem was still there. The Ops No.1 and 3 also admitted in their written statement that they were ready and willing to carry out necessary repairs. Accordingly, the Ops also cannot deny their responsibility towards the quality of product being manufacturer.
8. In the present complaint, the complainant has rightly prayed for refund of the amount paid towards the cost of hand set as he was deprived of its usage inspite of spending such a handsome amount for the purchase of the hand set. The demand of the complainant for the refund of the price value of the hand set is due to the manufacturing defect in the hand set and proves from product quality as well as poor services.
9. After having considered the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the non-providing of proper service and non-rectification of problem in the hand set clearly proves the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. The offer given by the Ops for repair of mobile phone in their written statement also proves deficiency in service on their part.
10. The complainant would have no means to find out whether the non-receiving of signal was due to a deficiency on the part of the service provided or a manufacturing defect in the mobile set itself. The wherewithall for that facet of ascertainment would obviously be available with the Ops in general, as OP No.3 in particular. There is not even an averment, muchless evidence, to the effect that any exercise of that hue was undertaken. What does a customer do in such an eventuality? The only purpose thereto is that he would access the mobile set manufacturer/dealer in the first instance. If the mobile set is tested and ‘reloaded’ (as averred by the contest Ops), they ought to announce the outcome thereof i.e. whether there was a manufacturing defect or not. If that had been done and announced to the complainant he would obvious not have been in a position to complain against the Ops.
11. In the totality of circumstances of the case, we have no reservation in coming to the conclusion that there was deficiency on the part of Ops in sending the services and we so view accordingly.
12. Resultantly, we find merit in the complaint, therefore, the same is allowed accordingly. The Ops, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-
    1. To refund Rs.6400/- being the cost of the mobile hand set in question to the complainant alongiwth interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 09.07.2014 till realization.
    2. To make the payment of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
    3. Costs of litigation are assessed as Rs.5,000/- payable by the OPs.
13. This order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

14.08.2015                    ANITA KAPOOR                   DHARAM PAL

                                      MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 

 

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

 

                                          

                                                     ANITA KAPOOR 

                                                     MEMBER