DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Mr. Rajul Aggarwal, H.No.794, Sector 4, Panchkula (Haryana)-134112.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, A25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.

2.                 Branch Head-M/s Phone Zone (i.e. Samsung Service Center), SCO 215, Top Floor, Sec-14, Panchkula (Haryana).

3.                 Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Ltd. through its Director, Regd. Office : SCO 1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

Branch Office : SCO : 1043, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Complainant in person alongwith Sh. Deeepak Aggarwal, Adv.

                        Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OP No.1

                        OPs No.2 & 3 exparte. 

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Rajul Aggarwal has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :

i)                   to refund the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs.28,400/-

ii)                to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of harassment;

iii)              to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 20.12.2011, he purchased a Samsung Galaxy S2 mobile phone from opposite party No.3 vide invoice (C-1) for Rs.28,400/-.  However, soon after purchase, it started giving problem of hanging.  He approached opposite party No.3 from where he was directed to Samsung Service Centre at Sector 44D, Chandigarh.  The Samsung Service Centre formatted the set and returned it to the complainant.   Again after two months the complainant encountered problem in the handset and again the same was formatted 2-3 times. On 23.7.2012 the complainant requested opposite party No.2 for a permanent solution.  The set was deposited with opposite party No.2 who replaced its motherboard and returned the mobile to the complainant.  But the problem resurfaced within a month.  On 24.10.2012 again the set as deposited with opposite party No.2 and when the complainant went to collect the handset he was told that the handset had been formatted.  On 26.11.2012 and 12.1.2013 again the same problem resurfaced. Ultimately, after a protracted correspondence, on 21.1.2013 the complainant was told by opposite party No.2 that it found the issue with the motherboard which needs to be replaced at a cost of Rs.8800/-.  The complainant immediately informed that the motherboard had already been replaced earlier and asked for refund but after so many reminders and requests, the complainant was told that he could only be given discount.  According to the complainant, failure on the part of the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile set amounts to deficiency in service.

In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           Notices were sent for the service of opposite parties No.1 & 2 through registered AD letter on 22.2.2013.  However, neither the same were received back undelivered nor any acknowledgement was received.  As the period of more than 30 days had passed, therefore, it was presumed that opposite parties No.1 & 2 had been duly served.  None appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2 on the date fixed. Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 2.4.2013.

4.                           Opposite party No.3 was duly served.  However, as none appeared on its behalf, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte.

5.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           The averments made in the complaint stands fortified by the affidavit filed by the complainant. The opposite parties have not filed written statement.  Hence, there is no rebuttal of the facts stated in the complaint which are supported by the duly sworn affidavit of the complainant. 

7.                           In support of his case, the complainant has also filed Annexure C-1, which is a copy of the invoice vide which the mobile handset in question was purchased for Rs.28,400/-. Annexure C-2 to C-5 are the copies of the receipts issued by the service centre for repair of the mobile handset in question.  A perusal of the same shows that the complainant approached opposite party No.2 for various problems which occurred in the mobile.  Even the motherboard was also changed once.  Despite it, the mobile set did not function properly and soon thereafter other problems of poor battery backup as well as in the touch screen occurred.

8.                           It was argued by the ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 that the warranty was for a period of one year and on 14.1.2013, when the handset was brought for repairs, the warranty period had expired and, therefore, opposite party No.2 was within its right to demand the repair charges.  This argument of the ld. Counsel, to our mind, has no force.  The mobile handset was giving problems from the very beginning and from the record it is proved that since 23.7.2012 the phone was being taken regularly for repairs by the complainant.  The defects were not completely rectified that is why the mobile handset had to be taken time and again for repairs.  In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the mobile set was brought for repairs after the warranty period.  Failure on the part of the opposite parties to rectify the defects in the mobile set, which was purchased at a hefty price of Rs.28,400/-, amounts to deficiency in service.   As the mobile set was taken to the opposite parties a number of times and still could not be repaired, so it is proved that the same is suffering from some inherent manufacturing defect. 

9.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under :-

i)                   to refund the invoice price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.28,400/-;

ii)                to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony;

iii)              to pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

10.                       This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

11.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

2.5.2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg