Haryana

Karnal

CC/254/2018

Ravinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronic Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Mohit Sachdeva

05 Feb 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No. 254 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt. 01.10.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 05.02.2019

Ravinder Singh son of Shri Ajit Singh resident of House no.510-L, Model Town, Karnal.

                                                                         …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 6^th floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

2. Samsung Service Centre, Sachdeva Enterprises, Shop no.536, near D.A.V. College for Women, Railway Road, Karnal, (Authorized Service Centre Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.) through its Incharge.

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Mohit Sachdeva Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for OP no.1.

                   Shri Amit Kumar Advocate for OP no.2.

                  

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had purchased a Samsung Mobile handset Model J7 Pro with IMEI no.358674/08/98875/1 from Gandhi Communication, Old Char Chaman for an amount of Rs.19,900/-, vide bill no.1937 dated 19.02.2018 with the warranty of one year. OP no.1 is the manufacturing company of the said mobile set and OP no.2 is the authorized service centre of the OP no.1. After some days of purchase, the said mobile started giving trouble. The network of the mobile started giving problems. The display of the mobile got disappeared after sometime of getting in switch on mode. The said mobile set of the complainant turned off and did not turn on despite of various efforts by the complainant. The complainant approached the OP no.2 on 10.03.2018 for rectifying the defects. The OP no.2 told the complainant that the screen/display of the said mobile was having problem and as the mobile set was under warranty, so the OP no.2 changed the display and assured the complainant that the said problem has been sort out and will not occur in future. After some days the display of the mobile set started showing black spots and when the complainant approached the OP no.2 and told in this regard, then the OP no.2 took the same and updated the software of the said mobile set and assured that the problem has been rectified and shall not occur in future. The complainant was shocked when the same problem of black patched in the mobile set occurred again. The complainant and visited the OP no.2 on 5.9.2018 and requested that the mobile set in warranty period and from the very beginning there is a defect and complainant has suffered mentally and physically harassment due to the defective mobile set and requested the OP no.2 to replace the mobile handset with new one but OP no.2 demanded an amount of Rs.6700/- from the complainant for repair of the mobile set. The complainant requested the OP no.2 that the mobile set is under warranty, then why he shall pay the amount as asked for. But OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP no.1 appeared and filed written version stating therein that the service to complainant have been provided whenever reported/demanded by complainant and there is no deficiency in service on part of OPs. The complainant in regard to complaint regarding the alleged unit approached the service centre of OP no.1 on 10.03.2018 vide call no.4256364103 and reported display line issue. The engineer checked the unit and resolved the said reported issue by replacement of Speaker and OCTA of the unit and the complainant took the delivery of the unit to his full satisfaction. It is further stated that the OP no.1 is known for best class of products and impeccable after sale services and the OPs have established a number of service center across the country in order to provide after sales services and if there is any issue regarding the alleged unit, the complainant must approach any of the service centre, but rather that the complainant without any cause of action has presented the present complaint. It is further stated that OP no.1 is ready to provide services regarding the unit in question as per warranty policy, so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 made vide his statement dated 29.11.2018 stated that the written statement of OP no.1 be read as written statement of OP no.2.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 19.12.2018.

5.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Anup Kumar Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 18.01.2019.

6.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.             The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a Samsung mobile handset, model no.J7 on 19.02.2018 for an amount of Rs.19,900/-, vide bill no.1937, with the warranty of one year. After some days of purchase, said mobile started giving troubles. The display of the said mobile got disappeared after sometime of getting in switch on mode. The complainant approached the OPs regarding the defect in the said handset. Moreover, during the course of repaired, OP no.2 demanded an amount of Rs.6700/- as repair charge. Complainant requested OP no.2 that when the mobile set is under warranty then why he shall pay the repair amount. The complainant requested the OPs to replace the mobile set in question but OPs refused to do so.

8.             On the other hand, the case of the OPs is that on 10.03.2018 complainant in regard to complainant in the mobile approached the OPs vide call no.4256364103 and reported display line issue. The engineer of OPs checked the unit and resolved the said reported issue by replacement of speaker and OCTA of the unit and the complainant took the delivery of the unit to his full satisfaction. The complainant never approached to the OPs after dated 10.03.2018. There is no mechanical defect in the unit. Complainant also failed to comply the mandatory provision of section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9.             Admittedly, complainant purchased the handset on 19.02.2018 for Rs.19,900/- from the OP no.1 for the warranty of one year. The handset started giving trouble from the very beginning. The complainant approached many times to the OP regarding the defect in his handset. As per the version of the complainant, OPS demanded Rs.6700/- for repair during the warranty period, which is not justified. As per the version of the complainant, he has purchased a new handset, vide bill (Ex.C3) of Rs.24,000/- from Shiv Communication on 18.10.2018 as handset in question was giving many problem from the very beginning and he has no need of the handset in question. The handset in question was giving trouble from the very beginning. Thus, we are of the considered view that the handset in question is defected one. The act of the OPs is amounts to deficiency in service.

10.            In view of the above observations, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.19,900/- as cost of the mobile to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.2200/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 05.02.2019

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal

 

           (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)  

                    Member                   Member