BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 76 of 2017
Date of Institution : 27.2.2018
Date of Decision : 30.11.2018.
Kapil Sharma son of Shri Satpal Sharma, resident of #384, Gali no.6, Aggarsain Colony, Sirsa, Haryana
……Complainant.
Versus.
1 Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044
2 Satya Sales, Near RC Regency Hotel, Sirsa, Haryana
3 Platinum Services, Near Prakash Ratan Complex, Barnala Road, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rakesh Kashnia, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.1&3.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile phone SM-N950F/DS, BLACK, INS-Sno. 352016090206822 from op no.2 (the authorized dealer of Samsung) on 05.10.2017 and paid an amount Rs.67900/- as its price. After few days, the above said mobile phone started giving problem and was getting hanged while opening the contact list. Upon this, the complainant made a call to the service center of Samsung, upon which the service center executive did some technical configurations on the mobile phone through remote desktop technique and assured the complainant that his device will work properly from now. Thereafter, the complainant started using his mobile phone. But to the surprise of complainant, the mobile again started giving the same issue. On 08.11.217, the complainant again made a call to the service center of Samsung and the service center technical expert did the same configuration and installations and asked the complainant to start the mobile in safe mode and it will work fine this time. But to the utter surprise of the complainant, the above said mobile again started giving the same issue even after starting in the safe mode as suggested by the customer care executive. On 21.11.2017, the complainant called the Samsung technical care and detailed about the issue, upon which, the customer care executive registered the complaint with the registration number 8482111925 and advised the complainant to visit the nearest Samsung Service center. On 15.12.2017, the complainant visited the op no.3 and detailed the issue and after inspection, the service center executive confirmed that there is issue with the above said mobile and suggested the complainant to get the software of the mobile updated and it will take around 2-3 hours to update the software. Upon which, the complainant agreed and the software of the mobile phone was updated. That after 2-3 days, the mobile again started giving the same problem i.e. it started to get hang when contact list was opened. The complainant again visited the op no.3 and detailed them about the issue, upon which, the op no.3 told the complainant that mobile phone need to be opened in order to inspect but in that case, the water proof capability of the mobile would be lost. Thereafter, on 03.01.2018, the complainant called the technical support executive on the service call center of Samsung and got registered the complaint regarding the above said issue in the mobile handset with registration number 8456744356. The complaint had bought the high end set from the ops with the belief that it will work fast and will create no issue as it has the updated software and latest hardware. But to the surprise of the complainant, the above said mobile phone started giving issue from the very beginning. The complainant approached the ops again and again to rectify the issue but all in vain. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice to the op no.1 on 23.1.2018 through his counsel Shri Rakesh Kashnia, Advocate, Sirsa regarding the issue in the above said mobile phone, suggesting the op no.1 to either rectify the above issue or to refund the payment of above said mobile phone within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, but till date complainant has not received any reply from the op no.l. The complainant is a businessman and is facing problems due to the defect in the above said mobile phone and as a result of which, the complainant suffered a mental agony as well as economical loss. Hence, this complaint.
2. Opposite party no.2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite party no.1&3 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that the intent of the op company is to serve its customer and provide goods at the most competitive price and also to enable most impeccable after sales service and there is no intent whatsoever to deny the same under any circumstances. In case any after sale service/quality issue is brought to notice of the op/service center, as a policy matter the same is immediately corrected as a matter of priority. Had the complainant approached the service center of the answering op rightfully with correct facts, prompt service would have been provided but rather than doing so the complainant has instead preferred the present motivated complaint hence the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal on this ground alone. It is further submitted that complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product. The alleged defect cannot be determined on the simpliciter submissions of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. The complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report. It is further submitted that the complainant in regards to complaint regarding the unit in question, approached to the service center of the company vide job no.4251454331 on 15.12.2017 and reported HANG & APP problem in his unit. The engineer checked the unit properly, but no major defect was found and only software of the unit got updated and no part of unit was replaced. It is further submitted that it is pertinent to mention here that the updation of software is not a defect in the unit and the same is just only to refresh the unit to make the unit working more efficiently. After updating of software of unit, the complainant took the delivery of unit being fully satisfied. Remaining contents of the complaint are denied.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of job card Ex.C2, copy of legal notice registered and postal receipt Ex.C4 whereas ops no.1 and 3 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Anup Kumar Mathur Ex.R1, copy of warranty card Ex.R2 in their evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for ops no.1 and 3 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant has furnished affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he reiterated the averments as made in the complaint. He has also tendered in evidence copy of bill Ex.C1, job card Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipt Ex.C4 and opposite parties no.1 and 3 have also tendered affidavit of Sh. Anup Kumar Mathur Ex.R1, copy of warranty card Ex.R2 in their evidence.
7. From the evidence of the complainant, it is proved that the complainant purchased a Samsung mobile phone from op no.2(the authorized dealer of Samsung) on 05.10.2017 and paid an amount Rs.67900/-. After few days, the above said mobile phone started giving problem and getting hanged while opening the contact list. The complainant made a call to the service center of Samsung, upon which the service center executive did some technical configurations on the mobile phone through remote desktop technique and assured the complainant that his device will work properly now. Thereafter, the complainant started using his mobile phone. But the mobile phone again started giving the same problem. On 8.11.2017, the complainant again made call to the service center of Samsung with some problem. Thereafter, complainant lodged complaint with the op on 21.11.2017, 15.12.2017 and continued to lodge complaints again and again and lastly lodged a complaint on 03.01.2018. In this regard he sent legal notice to op no.1 on 23.1.2018. So, it is the legal obligation of the ops to provide good sale service to customer like complainant. It appears from the evidence that the mobile of the complainant was not working properly for which complainant used to go to the service centre of the company for redressal of the complaint but his grievances were not redressed.
8. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out the necessary repairs in the mobile set of the complainant and to make it defect free even by replacing any parts without any cost within a period of 15 days from the receipt of copy of this order. In case it is found that mobile is not repairable, the ops shall be liable to replace the same with a new one of same make and model or in the alternate to refund the amount of Rs. 67900/- i.e. price of the mobile in question within further period of 15 days. We also direct the ops to pay sum of Rs.1000/- to the complainant as composite compensation and litigation expenses. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:30.11.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
