Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 597
Instituted on : 13.10.2022
Decided on : 23.08.2023
Ajit Singh Nandal Advocate age 67 year r/o House No.1300, Sector 3 Rohtak.
.......................Complainant
Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. Registered office 6th floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi through its M.D.
..........................Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Neeraj Sikka, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party.
.
ORDER
VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had purchased Samsung Mobile M-31 online vide order no.40S-5157936-2830750 vide invoice no. IN-SDEF1585 dated 26.10.2020 for Rs.18499/- from Savex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. That soon after purchase, it was found that the said mobile was not properly working and there was problem of hanging and heating. The complainant went to the service centre at Rohtak but problem could not be solved there and no satisfactory reply was given to the complainant. The said problems continued and in the end on 16.9.2022 the said mobile went out of order completely and became dead. The complainant went to the service centre at Rohtak and showed the mobile to them but they stated that the said mobile has gone out of order and has become dead and the complainant has to pay charges for the same. In this way, it is very clear that the respondent has supplied a mobile set which was having manufacturing defect and as such the respondent is liable to refund the price of the said mobile set amounting to Rs.18499/-. Complainant requested the opposite party many times to refund the price thereof but to no effect and the opposite party has finally a week ago refused to pay any heed to the request of complainant. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to refund the price of the said mobile amounting to Rs.18499/- alongwith interest thereon and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of causing mental tension, harassment, and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that as per the records of the answering company, the complainant has not registered any complaint to the service center of answering company. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. has an online system to enter all claims/complaints vide IEMI/Sr. no. in each and every case but in the present complaint as per limited details mentioned in the complaint, no complaint number, job sheet model number/serial number has been provided by complainant and therefore, no details found in the online system of the company which means that complainant has never registered any complaint with any of the service center of the answering opposite party. The complainant himself alleged that the service center asked the complainant to provide the services on chargeable basis. Though the unit is out of warranty period of one year and for the reason, any services/repair would have been provided to the complainant on paid basis as per the warranty terms and also in the present complaint, as per the records of the answering company, the complainant never submitted his unit with the service center of the answering company. The averments of the complainant regarding alleged reporting of issue with the service center of the company are absolutely and completely wrong and the complainant is required to put strict proof to prove the same. Nor the complainant had arrayed the said service center as a party to the present complaint which proves that the complainant never deposited his unit with the service center for any alleged issue. No question of any relief to complainant arises at all. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as the answering opposite party never refused to provide services to complainant as per warranty policy. It was the complainant who refused to pay repair charges after out of warranty period. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and has closed his evidence on dated 17.03.2023. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex. R1 and closed his evidence on dated 04.07.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case it is not disputed that complainant had purchased a mobile phone of opposite party company for a sum of Rs.18499/- on 26.10.2020 as is proved from the bill Ex.C1. The grievance of the complainant is that the alleged mobile phone was defective from the very beginning and there was problem of hanging and heating in the alleged mobile phone. The complainant contacted the service centre of opposite party for the alleged defects but the officials of service centre did not solve the problems and on 16.09.2022 the alleged phone went out of order completely and became dead. On the other hand, contention of the opposite party is that no complaint was ever registered in the online system of the company which means that complainant has never registered any complaint with any of the service center of the company.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, officials of the service centre did not resolve the problem of the mobile phone of the complainant. Ld. counsel for the complainant has contended that no job sheet was provided by the service centre. So to prove his case, ld.counsel for the complainant has moved an application for summoning the record of service Centre i.e. B2X Solutions of dated 16.09.2022. Notice of the same was issued to the concerned official of service centre but the same received with the report that B2X Solutions has been closed. Therefore, an another application was moved by ld. counsel for the complainant for summoning the record of mobile phone of the complainant through the opposite party company. But opposite party failed to place the same on record. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to refund the price of mobile set to the complainant after deduction of 25% depreciation on it i.e. to pay Rs.13874/-(Rs.18499/- less Rs.4625/-)
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.13874/-(Rupees thirteen thousand eight hundred and seventy four only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.10.2022 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
23.08.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
