Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 391
Instituted on : 11.07.2022
Decided on : 21.03.2024
Sumit Kumar Hooda son of Sh. Sumer Singh Hooda R/o M-11, Inderprasth Colony, Distt. Rothak-124001 Haryana.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizen Centre, Golf Course road, Sector-23, DLF, Phase V, Gurugram Haryana-122202, Through its Managing Director.
- B2X Service Solution India Pvt. Ltd. Jain Masion, HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001, through its Prop.
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Smt. SushmaNarwal Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.KunalJuneja, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are he had purchased a mobile phone Samsung Galaxy S9 on dated 24.01.2020 from the Flipkart vide invoice number FAAVWZ2000497593. The complainant had purchased this model because of its advanced features like dust resistance, water resistance in water to a maximum of depth of 1.5 meters for upto 30 minutes. In the month of June 2022, the complainant’s phone was suddenly fell down into water kept in bathtub. There was negligible/normal water in the tub. The complainant just picked up the phone as soon as it dropped. After that mobile phone has become switched off, the complainant reached to the service centre i.e. respondent no.2 for repairing the mobile phone. They inspected the mobile phone and issued a job card with defect description of liquid damage and told estimate of approximately Rs.28000/- to Rs.29000/- for repairing it. They told the complainant that the phone is out of warranty. The complainant told the features of the alleged mobile but the oppositeparty no.2 asked the complainant to contact the respondent no.1 in this regard. But the opposite parties denied to repair this mobile at their own cost. The act and conduct of the opposite parties not to repair or replace the said defective mobile is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the mobile phone with new one or to pay the claim amount of Rs.21712/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its accrual till its realisation and also to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint,notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that the unit of the complainant was checked by the engineer and it was found that the unit was exposed to the water beyond the rate limits and due to which, the unit got water damaged due to negligence of complainant himself. The complainant in regards to complaint regarding the unit in question approached to the service centre of company on 29.06.2022 i.e. after a period of approximately 2 years and 5 months from the date of purchase. The unit was working good without any issue till 29.06.2022. The complainant approached the service centre and reported ‘No POWER PROBLEM’ in the unit. The engineer of the company checked the unit and found that the unit was damaged due to liquid damage. The engineer told to complainant that the unit is out of warranty due to liquid damage and the IP 68 rating limits of unit has been extended and due to which, the unit got damaged due to water logging and the repair of the unit shall be on chargeable basis and accordingly, an estimate of repair was provided to the complainant. But the complainant refused to pay the charges of repair and started demanding replacement/refund for the unit without any issue and took the delivery of his unit without repair. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
However, opposite party No.2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.10.2022 of this Commission.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence on dated 13.04.2023. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties in his evidence has tenderedaffidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on 05.09.2023.
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, as per the bill Ex.C1 complainant had purchased the Samsung Galaxy S9 Coral Blue mobile for Rs.21712/-. As per the features of the alleged mobile given on Ex.C3, this mobile is IP68 water & dust resistant. The meaning of IP68 given on the web is that “The dust rating is 6 (highest level of protection), and the water resistance rating is 8 (water-resistant up to 5 feet for up to 30 minutes”. At the time of argument, complainant has placed on record a document ‘Annexure-JNA’ showing the features of Galaxy phone water resistance, as per which the alleged phone is water resistanceupto 1.5 meters for IPx8 rated phones for more than 30 minutes. As the mobile phone of the complainant fell into water kept in bathtub and became switched off, so he contacted the service centre i.e. respondent no.2 for repairing the mobile phone but the service centre told that the mobile was out of warranty due to liquid damage. The contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the mobile phone of the complainant was water resistance so it cannot be out of warranty till its end use. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 is that that the unit was exposed to the water beyond the rate limits and due to which, the unit got water damaged due to negligence of complainant himself. To prove the same opposite party has placed on record copy of job sheet Ex.R2 & Ex.R3, as per which the defect described is ‘liquid damage’ and the mobile is shown as ‘out of warranty’. Ex.R4 is the estimate of repair given by the opposite party.
6. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. No document is placed on record by the opposite party No.1 to prove the fact that the mobile was exposed to water beyond the rate limits. As per the document placed on record at the time of arguments as ‘annexure JNA’, the main feature of the product, which attracts the customers to buy the same is its water and dust resistance quality because it is a unique feature. The complainant had purchased the alleged product due to its unique features and the features of any product remains upto its end use. Hence the versionof the opposite party that the mobile was out of warranty is not genuine and the same amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence the opposite party no.1 is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deducting the 25% depreciation on it, as the complainant had used the mobile phone uninterruptedly for more than 2 years i.e. to pay Rs.16284/-.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 topay the amount of Rs.16284/-(Rupees sixteen thousand two hundred and eighty four only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 11.07.2022 till its realisation. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied 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:
21.03.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
