Haryana

Ambala

CC/286/2021

Krishan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Bakshi

01 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	286 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	13.09.2021
Date of decision	:	01.12.2022

 

Krishan Singh son of Shri Inder Singh, r/o # 180, Near Kid Zee School, Ghanour Road, Lailpur Basti, Ambala City. M. No.8168454203.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                            Versus

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Through its M.D. 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122202.
2. Kohli Telecom through its Proprietor, Authorized Service Centre of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 5, Prem Nagar, Near Post Office, Ambala City, Haryana-134003.
3. Exclusive Mobile World through its Proprietor, 30, Jain Nagar, Prem Nagar Road, Ambala City, Haryana-134003.

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties

Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri Sandeep Bakshi, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                             Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.

                             OP No.3 already ex parte.

Order:        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

(a). To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant, alongwith upto date interest @18% per annum.

(b) To pay an amount of Rs.17,000/- already paid by the complainant on account of repair of mobile phone within warrantee  period alongwith counsel fees of Rs.11,000/-

 

2.            Brief facts of the case are that on 26.08.2020 the complainant had purchased a mobile SAMSUNG NOTE 10 LITE bearing number SM-N770F/DS-353482111785484 of Rs.35,000/- under warrantee of one year from OP No.3, vide invoice No.SC1550 being the dealer of OP No.1 Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and OP No.2 is the authorized service centre of OP No.1. The said mobile is having manufacturing defect since inception, as soon after purchase, it usually hanged up for few minutes and started working after rebooting the process for which the complainant visited the shop of OP No.3 several times, OP No.3 assured the complainant that the same would be replaced if some major problem arose. Within two months of purchase of the said mobile, it stopped working and even was not recharging then the complainant approached OP No.3 who suggested him that as the mobile is within warranty so he should approach OP No.2, who is authorized service centre of OP No.1. Complainant approached the OP No.2 who took the mobile for repair and assured that repair would be free of cost as the mobile is well within warranty period, after 3-4 days he returned the repaired mobile to the complainant on 21.10.2020 alongwith bill invoice No.4312303243 of Rs.17,201/- and told him that as the mother board replaced which is not covered under warranty so he has to pay the amount of the bill having no other option except payment, he paid the said amount of Rs.17,201/- and took the repaired mobile. The problem of hanging of mobile has not been fully resolved and the mobile is still usually hangs up till date. Now 10-12 days back, some updates of the software blinked on the mobile and accordingly he updated the software, soon after updating the software, one dark spot appeared on the screen of the mobile which increased day by day. Complainant again visited the office of OP No.2 but his officials again replied that this is an internal chip problem so again the charges of Rs.20,000/- approximately would be incurred by the complainant for repair of the same. The said mobile set is having the manufacturing defect from the first day of purchase of the mobile and the complainant did not enjoy the benefit of such a expensive mobile of branded company like Samsung rather had to pay a huge amount on account of repair of motherboard even in warrantyperiod soon after purchase at that time and again the mobile developed the dark spot on the screen which expanded now to whole screen and now total screen is black. Calls are coming as the vibration is working but screen is totally blocked. OPs sold defected set of mobile to the complainant and even charged the amount on account of repair of the mobile which was within warrantyperiod and still is in warrantyperiod which amounts to unfair trade practice. OP No.1 is a Brand Samsung having good market in India and a good brand in the field of expensive mobiles in India. OPs No.2 & 3 are working under the terms and conditions as set out by the OP No.1. Now the complainant has totally fed up with the misbehavior of OPs No.2 & 3 as they are not been able to resolve the matter except of charging of amount of Rs.20,000/- again on account of repair which is still in warranty and for which OP No.1 is also equally liable as the OPs No.2 & 3 both are working under the instructions OP No.1. The act and conduct of the OP clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Hence the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts, locus standi, bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder etc. On merits, it has been stated that the unit was duly checked by the engineer of service center of answering company and same was found liquid damaged (i.e The mobile was found damaged due to contact with liquid/water) resulting in damage to the unit, but knowing well the all circumstances. In fact the complainant in regards to complaint regarding the unit in question, approached to the service center of the company on 17.09.2020 vide call NO.4310222962 and reported NO POWER ON PROBLEM in his unit. The engineer of the service center checked the unit and found that the unit is damaged due to liquid logging. The engineer of service center told to complainant that the unit is LIQUID LOGGED resulting in damage to the unit and as per conditions of warranty, the repair of unit shall be on changeable basis, but the complainant refused to pay the charges of repair and took his unit back without repair. After that, the complainant again approached to the service center of the complainant on 19.10.2020 vide call No.4312303243 and again reported same issue. The engineer of the service center again checked the unit and again found same issued i.e the unit is damaged due to liquid logging. The engineer of service center told to complainant that the unit is LIQUID LOGGED resulting in damage to the unit and as per conditions of warranty, the repair of unit shall be on changeable basis and an estimate of repair was provided accordingly. The complainant agreed to pay the charges of repair and accordingly the unit repaired by replacement of PBA & Sub PBA of the unit and the unit started working fine and the complainant took the delivery of unit to his full satisfaction. After that, till date 20.08.2021 i.e for approximate 10 months, no issue was reported by the complainant and after that on 20.08.2021, the answering company received a legal notice from the complainant qua the unit in question and it was alleged that the unit is not working fine. The answering company duly replied to the legal notice and it was apprised to the complainant that if there is any issue, the complainant should visit to the nearest service center of company for diagnose, but instead of doing so, the complainant filled the present false complaint. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.1. To support its contention, OP No.1 has mentioned various case laws in the written version  and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
4. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 has made a statement that he adopted the written version filed by OP No.1 on behalf of OP No.2 and does not want to file a separate written version on behalf of OP No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 and C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and  2 tendered affidavit of Sandeep Sahijwani C/o Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Center, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF, Phase-V, Gurgaon as Annexure OP1/A alongwith documents Annexure R1 to R5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 and 2. 
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 and carefully gone through the case file.

7.       From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant had purchased a mobile set make Samsung Note 10 LITE SM-N770F/DS for a sum of Rs.35,000/- vide receipt No.SC1550 dt. 26.08.2020 (Annexure.CW1/E) from OP No.3. As per the complainant, the said mobile set became defective within the warranty period having problems i.e. hanged up & it stopped working and its battery was not recharged and he approached the OP No.3 vide tax invoice Annexure.CW1/F. The OPs No.1 & 2 have specifically mentioned in their reply that after checking the mobile set in question on 17.09.2020, they found the unit is LIQUID LOGGED, the mobile set does not fall under the purview of the warranty conditions of the company. To support their contention, the OPs placed on record the photocopy of mobile in question Annexure R2 and R3 in which they specifically mentioned that White Salt Traces, found liquid, Logged Handset, Warranty void and the OPs given the repair estimate to the complainant. The complainant failed to place on record any expert evidence in support of its contention. The complainant agreed to pay the charges of repair and accordingly the unit repaired by replacement of PBA and Sub PBA of the unit and the unit stated working fine and he took the delivery of unit to his full satisfaction.  It means that the complainant was fully aware that his mobile was damaged due to liquid logging and that’s why the complainant did not deny this fact written in the tax invoice and received the same from the service centre of OP No.2 to his satisfaction. Hence, in view of the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs.

8.                In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that because the complainant has failed to prove his case, resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainants, free of costs. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

  Announced:- 01.12.2022

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President