Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/507/2020

Kalu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Sharma

11 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/507/2020
Date of Institution	:	04/11/2020
Date of Decision	:	11/11/2022

 

Kalu Ram son of Balbir Singh resident of House No.162, Chat Mohalla, Sector-45, Burail, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. SCO No.3027-3028, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh through its Head Executive Officer/concerned Executive Officer.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for OP

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh. Kalu Ram, complainant against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that, complainant had purchased one Samsung mobile phone SMM05FDADINS (hereinafter referred to as “subject mobile”) for ₹10,999/- through online process from Amazon.in, vide invoice dated 16.8.2019 (Annexure C-1) and the same was under warranty for one year.  After 3-4 months of its purchase, the subject mobile started creating problems, sometime in receiving calls and sometimes started fluctuating the display screen.  On 10.8.2020, complainant visited the OP office/service centre and contacted the concerned executive officer and disclosed him about the problem.  Then the Executive Officer after checking the same informed, software of the mobile is creating problem and same is required to be changed.  Accordingly, on obtaining consent of the complainant, the said software was changed and the complainant came back to his home.  However, the said problem remained there and on the next day i.e. 11.8.2020, the complainant again visited the office and he was informed that combo of the mobile is required to be changed which was also changed and the complainant came back to his home.  However, the said problem remained there and accordingly the complainant contacted the customer care centre on 17.8.2020 and the complaint was registered. On 18.9.2020, complainant received call from the head office of the OP and he was asked to contact the officer of the OP and thereafter the mobile phone of the complainant was taken by the officer of the OP by telling that 7 days will be taken for its repair.  On 25.8.2020, complainant received a telephone call and email from one Anupam Rajput, Customer Experience Team informing him that the subject mobile can be repaired for which an amount of ₹3,479/- will be charged and only 25% discount on the said amount will be given to the complainant.  However, the complainant was not satisfied with the proposal given by the OP and he refused to get the subject mobile repaired and had taken back the same from the OP.  Legal notice was also issued by the complainant to the OP, but, with no result.  In this manner, OP has harassed the complainant repeatedly and had not repaired the subject mobile of the complainant despite of the fact that same was within warranty period.  OP was requested several times to admit the claim of the complainant, but, with no result.  There is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs, as prayed.  Hence the present consumer complaint. 
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written reply, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, concealment of facts and also that as physical damage to the subject handset was found, which is not covered under the warranty, and besides that salt traces due to liquid infiltration were found on the charging pack, which was also not covered under warranty, the complainant was asked to pay the amount for its repair and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  On merits, denied there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP by alleging that when the subject handset was checked by the engineer of the OP thoroughly it was found that LCD was damaged as well as sub PBA liquid logged, which was not covered under warranty as claimed by the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant was duly informed that warranty of the handset has been barred due to damage and repair of the same shall be on chargeable basis.  Legal notice issue by the complainant was baseless and was duly replied by the OP.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. No rejoinder has been filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the OP and also gone through the file carefully. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, following points are formulated for discussion and proper adjudication :-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim as prayed for?

Point No.(i) & (ii)

4. Both these points are interconnected, hence are taken together to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
5. Admittedly, the subject mobile was purchased by the complainant through online process from the OP on 16.8.2019 vide invoice (Annexure C-1).  It is further an admitted case of the parties that on 10.8.2020, complainant went to the service centre of the OP and complained about some defects in the subject mobile.  It is further an admitted case of the parties that on not being satisfied with the service provided by the OP, complainant had issued a legal notice to the OP which was duly replied by the OP.  The case of the complainant is that as despite of repair of the subject mobile by the OP, defects remained therein and the OP has asked the complainant to pay an amount of ₹3,479/- i.e. the cost of repair despite of the fact that the said defect was pointed out to the OP within the warranty period, the said act of OP amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for.  On the other hand, defence of the OP is that as the LCD of the subject mobile was found damaged and sub PBA liquid was noticed logged when the same was brought by the complainant with the engineer of the OP for its repair and the complainant was accordingly informed that due to aforesaid damage caused by him to the subject mobile is not covered under the warranty and he has to pay the repair charges and he was also informed that for the satisfaction of its customer, OP will give 25% discount on the repair charges, but, as the complainant did not get the subject mobile repaired, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed.
6. Close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record of the case file, coupled with the pleadings of the parties, are discussed as under:-

1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the subject mobile was purchased by the complainant on 16.8.2019 and it was brought to the office/service centre of the OP for its repair on 10.8.2020 with certain defects, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP which has admittedly asked the complainant to pay an amount of ₹3,479/- i.e. the repair cost, as is the case of the complainant, or if the physical damage was found on the subject mobile i.e. LCD damaged and sub PBA liquid logged, which was not covered under the warranty and the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OP. 
2. In order to prove his case, complainant has relied upon the documents i.e. invoice (Annexure C-1) which clearly proves that the subject mobile was purchased by him online from the OP.  Annexure C-2 is the email received by the complainant from one Anupam Rajput, Customer Experience Team of the OP informing the complainant that he has to bear the cost of repair to the tune of ₹3,479/- and on the said amount 25% discount on total repair cost can be provided.  Annexure C-3 is the copy of legal notice dated 17.9.2020 issued by the complainant to the OP and Annexure C-4 is copy of reply dated 13.10.2020 to the same by the OP.  On the other hand, OP has relied upon warranty card (Annexure R-1) and exclusion clause of the same clearly mentions about the defects in the handset which are not covered under warranty and the same are reproduced as under, especially when the entire case of the parties is revolving around the warranty card :-

“18.   Defects arising out of the following are not covered under warranty :

• Mishandling/Misuse/Negligence/Tempering
• Improper ventilation
• Improper voltage
• Use of external material
• Physical damage and/or electrical damage caused by physical impact.

20.    The Warranty shall be null and void in any of the following cases, and in such cases Samsung may at its sole discretion repair the equipment on a chargeable basis. The decision of Samsung whether a complaint falls in any of these categories or not shall be binding on the Purchaser.

          xxx                       xxx                       xxx

• Defects caused due to exposure to moisture/ dampness/extreme thermal or environmental conditions or rapid changes in such conditions/corrosions/oxidations/spillage of food/liquid log/influence of Chemical substances.”

3. Thus, unless it is proved on record that physical damage was found on the subject mobile or the defect caused due to exposure to moisture/dampness found on the handset at the time when the complainant had brought the same for its repair, OP cannot escape from its liability since the said defect was pointed out by the complainant within a year to the OP.  However, the photographs (Annexure R-5 to R-7) clearly shows that the display screen was found damaged and even salt traces were found on the sub PBA/charging jack due to liquid infiltration, it is clear on record that the aforesaid defects were due to mishandling of the mobile set by the complainant and same were not manufacturing defects.  Not only this, as both the aforesaid defects found on the subject mobile at the time of inspection by the engineer of the OP when the same was brought by the complainant for its repair, the same is not covered under the warranty, rather the same is covered under the exclusion clauses 18 & 20 as discussed above. 
4. Moreover, when the OP has even offered 25% discount to the complainant for repair of the subject mobile, despite of the fact that there was negligence on the part of the complainant i.e. causation of damage to the subject mobile, it is unsafe to hold that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled for reliefs as prayed for.

7. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.        
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 11/11/2022 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member