DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Sh.Aalok Jagga s/o Sh.Ashok Paul Jagga, r/o House No.231, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi through its Chairman.

2.       Raj Hans Photo Centre (A unit of 3V Marketing), SCO No.4, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh, through its Principal Officer.

3.       Service Centre Samsung, SCO No.23, Sector 18, Chandigarh, through its Service Manager.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

For Complainant(s): Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.

For OPs No.1&3:         Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate.

For OP No.2 :              OP No.2 exparte.  

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Sh.Aalok Jagga, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that he wanted to buy a mobile phone and OP No.2 lured and advised him to buy Samsung GT-19003M and assured a trouble free mobile phone. The warranty of the said mobile was for one year. Relying on its assurance, the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 15.1.2012 from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.17,500/- vide bill, copy of which is Exhibit C-1. The said phone was manufactured by OP No.1 and it was carrying warranty for one year. However, after one month of its purchase, the said mobile started giving trouble. When the complainant wanted to open the message box, the phone used to give an error with regard to non applicability of the application. When the complainant tried to open the phone book option the error appeared on the screen to the effect that the same could not be opened. When the complainant wanted to see the recent calls list, it did not show the recent calls received by him. Similarly when the complainant wanted to save a particular contact in the phone-book it could not be saved and the phone showed an error. Apart from it, the phone used to get switched off on its own despite sufficient battery. Due to the defects in the phone, the complainant could not get any phone calls from his clients and suffered loss of various professional proposals. The speaker of the phone used to get automatically switched on while talking to somebody without pressing any option with regard to the same. Similarly the hearing speaker used to get switched off during a conversation. The battery life was also very low because the phone battery did not even survive for a single day despite being fully charged. The complainant immediately approached OP No.2 with the said grievances and he handed over his visiting card, copy of which is Exhibit C-2, asking him to visit the Samsung Service Centre – OP No.3. The complainant approached the service centre almost more than three times i.e. in the month of March, 2012 thereafter when the problem persisted in July, 2012 and then in August, 2012. OP No.1 (OP No.3?) who is maintaining the service centre at Sector 18, Chandigarh when examined the phone reported that there was some software problem as it was a multimedia phone. The complainant asked it to issue a job work whereby  the said fault be mentioned but the standard reply of the service centre used to be that since the phone was in warranty and repair was being carried out in the warranty period, therefore, such type of job works were not issued. It was told that job work in such format used to be prepared when the phone was presented in the service centre beyond the warranty period. The service centre only used to give a slip to the complainant, which was required to be given back to them after receiving the repaired phone. The service centre used to take 2-3 days to repair the phone, which again caused extreme harassment to the complainant. The complainant has alleged that the phone is absolutely not in working condition and is totally defective. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant has made a prayer for a direction to the OPs to refund an amount of Rs.17,500/- along with interest @18% p.a., apart from making payment of Rs.50,000/- towards harassment and an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2.                OP No.2 did not appear despite service on 11.1.2013 and it was proceeded exparte.

3.                OPs No.1 and 3 in their written reply have pleaded that the complainant has not mentioned any date of his alleged visit to the OPs for the purpose of carrying out repair of the mobile set. The complainant has not placed on record any information/record regarding any service request made by him to the OPs. It has been averred that no service request has been provided by the complainant to show that he ever visited the OP for carrying out the repair on the mobile set. It has been averred that the OP has made efforts to trace any complaint in the service record of the company but no record has been traced. It has been averred that the complainant be directed to handover the mobile set and the same shall be repaired under the warranty conditions.

4.                The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                On 6.5.2013 when the case was fixed for arguments and it was last opportunity for addressing arguments, none appeared for OPs No.1 and 3. Arguments on behalf of the complainant were heard and the case was reserved for orders. However, OPs No.1 and 3 were still granted an opportunity to file the written arguments within three days. Written arguments were not filed within three days but the same were filed only on 13.5.2013 but still we are considering those arguments.

6.                At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the complainant has leveled a specific allegation against OP No.2 that it lured and advised him to buy Samsung GT-19003M, which was told to be a trouble free mobile phone and assured that it would render an absolutely perfect service. The complainant has also alleged in para No.4 of the complaint that due to the defective phone, he immediately approached OP No.2 with his grievance that it was a totally defective phone but he handed over his visiting card – Exhibit C-2 behind which he mentioned the address of the service centre of Samsung and asked him to visit the service centre and stated that he was helpless in the matter. Significantly, OP No.2 has not come forward to contest the complaint. The allegations of the complainant against OP No.2 have gone unrebutted. It is proved from the affidavit and documents of the complainant that he was lured by OP No.2 to buy Samsung GT-19003M with an assurance that it would render an absolutely perfect service and after the complainant observed the defects mentioned in para No.4 of the complaint, he approached OP No.2 with his grievance that it is a totally defective phone and he asked him to visit the service centre and stated that he was helpless in the matter.

7.                The original invoice – Exhibit C-1 shows that the complainant purchased Samsung 19003-4B mobile phone from OP No.2 for an amount of Rs.17,500/- on 15.1.2012. The allegation of the complainant that it carried a warranty of one year has not been denied by OPs No.1 and 3 in their written reply. As far as the question of the details of the defects is concerned, the details of the defects have been elaborated by the complainant in para No.3 of the complaint and the same have also been mentioned by us in para No.1 of the order. Though the dates of the visit of the complainant to OP No.3 have not been mentioned in the complaint, yet it has been clearly mentioned that the complainant approached OP No.3 in the month of March, 2012, July, 2012 and August, 2012 and the service centre used to take 2-3 days to repair the phone.  The grievance of the complainant is that the mobile set is not in working condition. So far as the question of non production of record of any service request by the complainant is concerned, it is the specific plea of the complainant that OP No.3 did not issue any job work. It used to give only a slip which was required to be given back to it after receiving the repaired phone. The allegation of the complainant in para No.5 of the complaint about handing over a slip which was taken back after receiving the repaired phone has not been denied by OPs No.1 and 3 in para No.5 of the written reply. The present complaint was filed by the complainant within the warranty period. OP No.3 has not produced any service record of the month of March, 2012, July, 2012 and August, 2012 to show that the complainant never made any visit to the service centre and there is no record of any complaint having been made by the complainant to it. We are of the view that there is no reason to disbelieve the allegations of the complainant about the defects mentioned in para No.3 of the complaint, which is quite exhaustive. Since no expert has been examined by the complainant, therefore, we are unable to hold that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile phone in question. OPs No.1 and 3 have contended in their written arguments that as a service gesture the complainant may be directed to handover the said mobile phone for the purpose of inspection and in case it is found that there is any defect, which is covered under the warranty conditions, the same shall be repaired under the warranty conditions itself. Had this offer of the OPs No.1 and 3 been genuine, they would have asked on the very first day of appearance i.e. 11.1.2013 that the complainant be asked to produce the mobile set in question before this Forum and that the defects, if any, would be removed as per warranty conditions. However, the learned Counsel for OPs No.1 and 3 took adjournments for filing the written reply on 28.1.2013 and 11.2.2013 and filed the written reply and evidence only on 28.2.2013. Since the present complaint was filed within the warranty period, OPs are bound to remove the defects mentioned by the complainant in the complaint. We find that it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.                For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed. OPs are directed :-

i)                 To repair the mobile phone of the complainant and remove its defects mentioned in the complaint and handover the same to the complainant in perfect working order with an extended warranty of six months from the date of delivery to the complainant.

ii)                OPs shall also make payment of an amount of Rs.7500/- to the complainant towards harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.

The liability of the OPs shall be joint and several.

9.                This order shall be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs shall refund the amount of the mobile set i.e. Rs.17,500/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, till its realization, besides payment towards harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.

10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.