| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT - SOUTH-WEST GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SHAKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 Case No.CC/214/18 Date of Institution:- 05.06.2018 Order Reserved on:- 31.01.2024 Date of Order:- 08.08.2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Manish Sharma @ Manish Shastri S/o Laxmi Narayan Shastri 63, LGF, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi - 110065 …..Complainant VERSUS - Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Head Office 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122202 - HCL Services Limited
A-233, Okhla Industrial Phase-1, New Delhi – 110020 - Mr. Arun Tyagi
C/o HCL Services Limited A-233, Okhla Industrial Phase-1, New Delhi – 110020 - Digital Compusystem Pvt. Ltd.
G-6, Red Rose Building, 49/50, Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019 ..…Opposite Parties O R D E R DR. HARSHALI KAUR, MEMBER - Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by OP-1 Samsung S-8, G950 FD Gold handset with IMEI No.358057081-259986/01 & IMEI2-358058081-259984 SN RZ8J51QQWFV on 29.06.2017. He paid Rs.57,900/- for the said mobile,towards which OP-4 issued an invoice no.DCPL/DEL SAM RTC/17-18/1237 through Bajaj Finance(Annexure-A).
- After a few days of usage, the Complainant alleges that he began having problems with the phone, like hanging, battery draining very fast, slow and lagging phone, screen resolution becoming yellowish and other issues. He reported the aforementioned issues to the customer care of OP-1 on 25.09.2017, who appointed OP-2 & 3 to resolve his grievance.
- . A representative of OP-2 took the Complainant's phone on 27.09.2017 for repair to OP-2 & 3. A job card was generated, and the Complainant was assured that his repaired phone would be delivered to him in 2-3 days.
- The Complainant alleges that on 03.10.2017, the Complainant received his phone from OP-2 in damaged condition. He immediately mentioned this fact on the delivery receipt and reported the same to OP-1. But no action was taken & neither any bill was provided to the Complainant on inquiry towards the work done on his phone. He was informed that no bill/invoice was provided for work done during the warranty period. Annexures B & C are the copies of the job card and e-mail sent by the Complainant, respectively, annexed with the complaint.
- The Complainant admits that the mobile phone worked well for some time but again began to have problems. He reported the same to OP-1 on 19.03.2018. OP-2 and 3, on the direction of OP-1, again took the phone for repair on 20.03.2018 and provided a stand-by phone which was also damaged.The Complainant alleges that all the parts of his phone were changed this time by OPs 2 and 3. "Annexure-D" is the job card annexed with the complaint towards the repair of the Complainant's phone.
- The Complainant wrote several e-mails to OP-1 detailing his grievance to no avail. Annexure-H (Colly) are copies of the e-mails annexed with the complaint. Fed up with the OP's deficient service, the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 05.04.2018 (Annexure-E) to the OPs. On receipt of the legal notice, the Complainant was contacted by the representatives of OP-2 on 06.04.2018. The OP-2 representatives asked the Complainant to visit the service centre with his defective phone.
- The Complainant states that upon receipt of his phone, he inquired about the work undertaken on his phone and was informed that the display, battery, motherboard and kit had been changed. On learning that so many parts had been replaced in his phone, the Complainant approached OP-3 to find the reason behind the defects that required the replacements and that too without his permission/information. The Complainant alleges that he was told that the parts were changed since the phone had several defects.
- On 09.04.2018, when the Complainant reached the OP-2 service centre, he was told that his case had been escalated as his phone had manufacturing defects. The Complainant waited for a positive outcome and also sent an e-mail inquiring about the status of his complaint, but he did not get any satisfactory reply from the OPs. He further received a call from one Sh. Shekhar from the legal team of OP-1 who promised that the invoice amount would be refunded to the Complainant. Alternatively, the device could also be changed, as stated by the Complainant in his complaint.However, when the Complainant asked for a written representation, the authorised representative of OP-1. Mr. Shekhar refused to do so (Annexure-I).
- When no positive outcome or resolution was forthcoming,the Complainant filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. He sought directions to the OPs to jointly and severally refund the consideration amount of Rs.57,900/- along with interest @24%, Rs.18,00,000/- towards loss of business, mental loss and harassment suffered and Rs.1,10,000/- towards litigation costs.
- On notice, OP-1 filed a reply denying any deficiency on their part. OP-1 stated that the Complainant purchased the mobile phone on 29.06.2017,which came with a warranty of 1 year. As per the warranty conditions, a refund is expressly excluded, and the warranty covers only the repair or replacement of any part of the mobile as required. In case of damage, the product could only be repaired on a chargeable basis andpaid for by the customer. Annexure-A is the copy of the warranty terms and conditions annexed with the reply by OP-1.
- After purchasing the mobile handset, the Complainant approached OP-1 for the first time on 25.09.2017 and reported some problems after using it for three months. No defect was found by the Engineer representatives of OP-1. However, the mobile was found to be physically damaged due to the Complainant's negligence and mishandling. Annexure-B is the copy of the acknowledgement of the service request dated 25.09.2017, annexed with the reply of OP-1.
- The Complainant again approached OP-1 on 20.03.2018 and reported some issues with display brightness and hanging problems. On inspection, physical damage was found on the phone, but as a goodwill gesture,the LCD & PBA Kit was changed per warranty terms (Annexure-C) dated 20.03.2018.
- So far as the yellowish tint, OP-1 states that the Complainant's mobile has a super AMOLED Display to bring out the colour brightness, and it is not a defect. OP-1 states that OP-1 addressed every issue raised by the Complainant whenever the Complainant approached OP-1 & is still ready to resolve any issue if left as per the warranty policy seeking dismissal of the complaint.
- OP-2, the service centre of OP-1 and OP-3, theauthorised representative of OP-2, filed a joint reply stating therein that the defective parts were replaced per the terms of warranty provided with the product manufactured by OP-1. On receipt of the Complainant's handset, OP-2 and 3 did not find any manufacturing defect; hence, the required parts were replaced with new ones per the warranty terms and conditions of the handset. Therefore, OP-2 provided satisfactory service to the Complainant, repairing his mobile free of cost within a reasonable time under warranty, and OP-3 resolved the Complainant's grievance whenever the Complainant approached OP-2 to report any fault in his handset.
- Denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OP-4,in their reply, states that OP-4 is the authorised dealer and distributor of OP-1 manufactured products such as laptops, phone accessories, etc. The Complainant has not sought any relief qua OP-4 nor placed any evidence of deficient service on record. Hence, no liability can be attributed to OP-4 as there is no privity of contract between OP-4. Further, once the product is sold by OP-4, the after-sales service and warranty are provided by OP-1. OP-4, being the dealer, has no role to play in this regard.
- The Complainant filedrejoinder to the replies filed by the OPs along with his own affidavit to be read in evidence reiterating the averments as made in the complaint. OP-1 filed the affidavit of Sh. Anidya Bose, AR, for the OP-1. OP-2 and OP-3 filed the affidavit Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, Deputy Manager of OP-2 and OP-4 filed the affidavit of Mr. Tinku KumarSah, AR for OP-4. All OPs repeated the statements as made in their respective replies. Thereafter, the contesting parties filed their written arguments.We have heard the Ld. Counsels of the Complainant and all OPs in detail before the order was reserved.
- We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the present case and have perused the documents filed by the parties to corroborate their testimonies.
- We find that the Complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by OP-1 from OP-4 on 29.06.2017. He paid the consideration amount of Rs.57,900/- for the same. An invoice was issued to the Complainant towards the said purchase annexed by the Complainant with his complaint as Annexure-A.
- The Complainant began facing operational issues with the handset within three months of purchase and thus lodged a complaint regarding the problems he was facing with his handset with the customer care of OP-1.OP-1 marked OP-2, the authorised service centre of OP-1, through OP-3, the authorised representative, to resolve the problemswith the Complainant's handset like hanging, battery draining, lagging phone, yellowish screen resolution and other issues.
- The Complainant's phone was collected on 27.09.2017 for repair from him with the assurance that it would be delivered back to him after rectifying it within 2 to 3 days. However, when the Complainant received his phone on 03.10.2017, he found it damaged and mentioned the same to OP-1.
- After the mobile phone worked adequately for some time, the Complainant again found issues with it, which he reported on 19.03.2018, i.e. after more than five months. The Complainant has alleged that OP-2 replaced many parts of his phone under warranty without his permission or information. When the Complainant sought an explanation regarding the work done on his phone, he was informed that the display, battery, motherboard and kit had been changed in the Complainant's phone. OP-3 further admitted that due to several defects, the parts were changed. OP-3 also behaved rudely with him when he inquired regarding the work done on his phone.
- The Complainant has annexed the job cards (Ex.CW/B and Ex.CW/D)issued towards repair done on his handset by OP-2. The Complainant has also annexed the e-mails exchanged with OP-1 as Ex.CW1/H (Colly) to clarify his grievance and their false assurances. The Complainant thereafter sent the legal notice dated 05.04.2018 to the OPs (Exh.CW1/G), after which the OPs hurriedly returned his phone.
- On notice, the OPs filed their replies. OP-1, the manufacturer, admitted that the Complainant had purchased a mobile handset manufactured by OP-1, which carried a warranty of one year within the warranty period OP-1 through its authorisedservice centre OP-2 resolved all the issues that arose in the Complainant's phone. Further, as per policy,only the repair or replacement of defective parts was possible, which they did, as evident from the job cards issued by OP-2 towards the repair of the Complainant's phone. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1 in the service provided to the Complainant.
- OP-2 & 3 filed a joint reply stating that when the Complainant's phone was inspected by OP-2 engineer, physical damage was found in his phone,but as a goodwill gesture,LCD and PBA kit were replaced under warranty terms OP-2 further were ready to address and resolve the Complainant's grievance under policy terms even now, as stated in their reply by OP-2. Since OP-2 & 3 had given adequate and satisfactory service to the Complainant by repairing and replacing any defective parts under warranty,they were, therefore, not negligent.
- OP-4 claimed that OP-4 was just the seller and that the Complainant had not filed any documents to show that OP-4 had provided deficient service to him. The Complainant has also not asked for any relief qua OP-4. Thus, OP-4 is not liable for any deficiency if found in the present case.
- In our considered view, the Complainant, who purchased the mobile handset on 29.06.2017 from OP-4 manufactured by OP-1, only used it for three months before he found that several issues arose, causing him to lodge a complaint with OP-1 on 25.09.2017. His phone was collected by OP-2 on 27.09.2017, and a job card was issued. A bare perusal of this job card clarifies that the Complainant found the defect like 'hanging problem and battery issue'. The authorisedrepresentative of OP-2 mentioned that 'minor scratch' was found on the phone. This comment by the authorised representative of OP-2 on the job card dated 25.09.2017 falsifies the statement of OP-2 and 3 that the OPs found physical damage on the Complainant's phone.
- The Complainant used his repaired phone for another 5 months but again found defects like 'display colour, hanging and other problems' which he mentioned in the "service request" made to OP-2 through OP-1 on 19.03.2018. The authorised representative again mentioned "dent &scratch" in the same but did not mention physical damage if grave damage had been found on his phone on receipt of the same.
- OP-2 replaced four parts as mentioned in the job sheet dated 19.03.2018,annexed as page no.18 with the complaint. OP-2 replaced the OCTA, Kit, Battery and PBA in the Complainant's handset on 28.03.2018. OP-2 has also admitted to the same in their affidavit filed to be read as evidence. This statement of replacement ofLCD & PBA Kit of the Complainant's phone, when he brought it to their service centre on 20.03.2018 and reported some issues with display brightness and hanging problems (Annexure-C), clarifies that the Complainant's phone was constantly and repeatedly having some defect due to which the parts of his phone were being replaced. This fact that at least four parts were replaced within nine months of purchase after being rectified and repaired twice within this period is sufficient to prove the fact there was some defect with the Complainant's phone which OP-2 could not repair to the Complainant's satisfactionso that the phone worked to its full capability.
- As far as OP-3 is concerned, the Complainant has not filed any cogent evidence to show that OP-3 had made any promises or gave any assurance personally or on behalf of OP-2 to be held liable in this case. Hence, OP-3 is absolved from any liability if found in this case.
- Further, the Complainant has also not sought any relief against OP-4, the seller of the phone in question. The Complainant used the phone satisfactorily for three months before he began facing problems with it. Hence, we do not feel OP-4 can be held liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in the instant case. We, therefore, absolve OP-4 of any liability found in this case.
- Allowing the complaint only qua OP-1 and OP-2, we direct them to jointly or severally pay the Complainant a lumpsum amount of Rs.70,000/- towards the deficiency in service and mental harassment faced by him for the phone which could not be repaired to his satisfaction. OP-1 & OP-2 shall also jointly and severally pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs to the complaint.
- Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
- The file be consigned to Record Room.
- Announce in the open Court on 08.08.2024.
| |
