The present complaint pertains to malfunctioning of an expensive Samsung Brand Mobile shortly after (2-3 months of) its purchase. The consumer-purchaser approached the Vendor as well as the Distributor-Service Center (hereinafter called the OP) for corrections cum repairs. The OPs out-rightly refused free repairs/ service alleging malfunctioning due to damage as a result of mishandling rude usage of the device.

2.       The complainant himself being a practicing advocate got legal-notice served through his counsel (Ex.C2 to Ex.C5) to the three OPs who however did not relent and instead quoted/demanded Rs.49260.96 (Ex.OP1,2/12) vide estimates dated 10.04.2021 for repairs/ replacement of parts etc., for the mobile purchased (Ex.C1) for Rs.1,14,000/- only on 19.06.2020. 

3.       Finally, the complainant upon having filed the present complaint has sought refund of Rs.1,14,000/- i.e., invoice value of the purchased device and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for having suffered humiliation cum harassment at the hands of the opposite parties besides monetary loss and loss of professional business that he is used and preferred to conduct on his Cell since the spread of Carona-19 around the Globe.

4.       The OPs, in response to the Commission’s Summons, appeared through its counsel and filed its written-version, refuting therein, the alleged malfunctioning of the mobile & instead counter-alleged mishandling resulting into consequential physical damage which in itself has been a warranty void condition. Thus free repairs were rightly refused and instead paid repairs/ replacements/ services were offered.

5.       In support of their alleged pleadings the OPs have produced its General Manager’s affidavit (at Ludhiana) deposing the contents of the written version. In order to further substantiate its pleadings the OPs have produced documents Ex.OP1,2/1 to Ex.OP1,2/14) i.e., acknowledgement(s) of Service Request and photograph print-outs of the device besides its estimate letter, customer-contacts and reply to legal notice etc. The OPs do admit malfunctioning of the device but attribute the same to physical-damage suffered by it on account of mishandling and rough-use etc. that is denied / rebutted in totality by the complainant alleging inherent defect recurring at irregular intervals. 

6.       We have carefully examined the documents/ evidence produced on record (along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ for those ignored to be produced) in order to adjudicate/ determine the respective ‘claims’ as put-forth by the present litigants in the light of arguments  advanced by their respective learned counsels representing the two sides. We find that the complainant had to suffer financial loss and hardship in his profession on account of malfunctioning prompted within a short span of time in his freshly purchased quality mobile/ device of Samsung repute. The measures of general exposure and awareness do not accept malfunctioning of advanced devices/ electronics equipment on account of routine-use/ ordinary-handling/ petty physical damages etc. The OPs could not prove that scratches as a result of rough usage/ falls on ground can result into physical damages to such an extent so as to cause regular malfunctioning of the device at irregular intervals. The OPs have failed to prove that physical damages as apparent on the body of the device have caused it to malfunction.     

7.       In our considered opinion the recurrent prompts of malfunctioning of the mobile set has indeed caused disruption in professional work and consequential loss to the complainant and have also violated his consumer rights. Thus, we find and hold the titled Opposite Parties deficient in service and order them to refund the invoice amount of Rs.1,14,000/- to the complainant besides to pay him a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation within 45 days of receipt of the certified copy of these orders. Upon receipt of the award amount in full the complainant will return the device to the OP’s representative who will collect the same from the office of the complainant at his own expense.    

8.       The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                  President.    

ANNOUNCED:                                      (R.S.Sukhija)

MAY 06, 2022.                                           Member.

YP.