SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD. V/S AJAY MARYA (IN PERSON). - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Panchkula

CC/402/2019

AJAY MARYA (IN PERSON). - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY MARYA.

03 Oct 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

Consumer Complaint No	:	402 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	08.07.2019
Date of Decision	:	03.10.2022

Ajay Marya, H.No.1240, Sector-7, Panchkula, Haryana-134109

..….Complainant

Versus

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. through its CEO 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122202

2. Mobile Care, Samsung Authorised Service Center, SCO-62, Ist Floor, Near Anupam Sweets Swastik Vihar, Sector-5, Panchkula- 134109.

……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Before: Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

For the Parties: Complainant in person.

Ms. Jyoti Rani, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

OP No.2 already ex-parte vide order dated 27.8.2019.

ORDER

(Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1. The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant had purchased a Samsung handset Model ON NXT 64 GB IMEI No.357956081939706 with one year warranty on 14.10.2017 from Flipkart by paying Rs.11610/- and for the transaction the seller provided vide bill no.#FAAVWZ1800028643. It is contended that after 5 months of its purchase, it started restarting & freezing while normal usage. One complaint the operating software was reinstalled to rectify the defect handset but all the solutions worked temporarily. Further, in the month of October 2018, the complainant approached the OPs and the representative of OP No.2 diagnosed the device and stated that handset has display fade, freezing, hang, slow and restarting issues. The representative of OP No.2 has took the custody of handset with the promise to replace the motherboard and display and make the handset in perfect condition. After 20-30 days, the OP No.2 stated that they don’t have stock of motherboard parts of the specific handset and so they are not in position to rectify the restarting and freezing issue to device. However they had rectified the display fadedness. The complainant further approached the OP No.2 after few days again and, he asked to OP No.2 to change his mobile, if they don’t have motherboard of the handset, but he refused to change the same and failed to rectify the handset. Further the complainant approached the OP No.1 CEO office on 08.02.2019 through email but it did not provide any solution for the defective handset. The act of OPs for non providing proper services to the complainant is deficiency in service on their part, which certainly caused physical and mental harassment to the complainant; hence, the present complaint.

2. Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through authorized representative and filed reply by raising preliminary objection qua complaint is not maintainable and not come with clean hands. It is alleged that the complainant purchased the handset on 14.10.2017 which carries warranty for one year i.e. upto 13.10.2018. He approached the Authorised Service Centre of the OP on 12.07.2018 to replace the physically damaged screen. The complainant availed one time screen replacement offer for Rs.990/- and the screen of the handset was replaced free of cost. It is also alleged that the complainant uninterruptedly used the handset for 9 months, but on 13.10.2018 i.e. on the last day of warranty period, the complainant approached the ASC with LCD fade problem, heating problem and hanging problem. It is further alleged that the OP is always inclined towards providing quality after sales services and taking the complaint of the complainant as a matter of priority, the LCD screen was immediately replaced whereas to ascertain the other defects, the complainant was requested to submit the handset so that it could be thoroughly inspected. Even after thorough inspection of the handset by the engineers of the ASC of the OP, no defect was found in the handset and the handset was in fine working condition. As far as heating problem is concerned, the temp of the handset was recorded at different stages and that too was found to be normal. The handset bears no defect was intimated to the complainant and was requested to take back the handset as it was in fine working condition and there was no manufacturing defect in the handset but the complainant was adamant to replace the handset and never bothered to take his handset back even after repeated by the ASC. Moreover, no expert opinion has been placed on record by the complainant. On merits, it is stated that the OP role is limited up to the product quality and warranty benefits of the unit in question. This unit is well known product in market and carries a warranty against any malfunction in unit which mean product shall be repaired free of cost up to one year from the date of purchase if any trouble crops up on account of any defect or faulty workmanship. This warranty is provided by manufacturer under some terms and conditions which must be followed by the customers. There is no manufacturing defect in the handset and the handset is in fine working condition and the complainant himself intentionally not to take back the handset even after repeated requests by the ASC. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3. The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Annexure R-1/A along with documents Annexure R1/1 & R1/6 and closed the evidence.

4. We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for OP No.1 and gone through the entire record available on file including written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5. During arguments, the complainant has prayed for assigning the particular numbers to the bills and documents etc as appended by him with the complaint at the time of its filing. It is stated that the said documents could not be tendered in evidence due to in advertence and thus, it is prayed that the same may be read into his evidence by assigning certain specific nos. Since the said documents i.e. bill and job-sheet etc. were already appended with the complaint, thus, no prejudice is going to be caused to OPs, if a specific mark is assigned to the said documents and accordingly, the prayer of the complainant is allowed by taking the said documents on record as mark ‘A’ to ‘E’ for deciding the controversy in a proper and fair manner.

6. The purchase of the mobile set in question for a sum of Rs.11,610/- vide Mark ‘A’ having warranty of one year is not disputed. The dispute between the parties is qua the functioning of the said mobile set. As per complainant, it has manufacturing defect in it whereas the OP No.1, who is manufacturer of the said mobile set, has denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile set.

7. During arguments, the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has prayed for the acceptance of the complaint by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

8. The complainant has placed reliance upon Affidavit Annexure C-A as well as Mark ‘A’ to ‘E’ in support of his contentions.

9. The OP No.1 has contested the complaint by raising preliminary objections as well as on merits in its written statement. In preliminary objections, it is submitted that the complainant has not approached the commission with clean hands and concealed the true and material facts. Further, it is alleged that there is no manufacturing defect in the said handset; hence, no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant. The learned counsel for OP No.1 vehemently argued that no expert opinion has been placed on record by the complainant to substantiate his contention that the mobile set was having manufacturing defect in it. The learned counsel contended that the onus to prove the manufacturing defects was on the complaint. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following case laws:-

Chandeshwar Kumar Vs. Tata Engineering Locomotive Co.Ltd & Anr., I(2007) CPJ 2(NC).

Lovely Autos Vs. Harmesh Lal & Anr., I(2007) CPJ 312(NC).

Dr. K.Kumar Advisor(Engineering)Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Dr. A.S.Naryana Rao & Anr.,I(2010) CPJ 19(NC).

Classic Automobiles Vs. Nand Mishra & Anr. reported as 2010(I) CPJ 235(NC).

Sushil Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Dr. Birendra Narain & Ors. Reported as 3(2010) CPJ 130(NC)-Sushila Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Dr. Birendra Narain & Ors.

10. Further, it is contended that the manufacturer is not liable to replace or refund the price, if the defect can be removed by replacing the defective part. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following case laws:-

Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. P.Rathnadurai, reported as 2004(II) CPJ 563(NC).
Dr. Hema Vasantilal Dakoria Vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd. & Ors. reported at II(2005) CPJ 102(NC).

12. The aforesaid contentions raised by OP No.1 qua the concealment of the facts etc are not tenable as it has not been clarified as to which facts have been concealed by the complainant. Further, the law laid down in the cited case law is not disputed but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case as job-sheet dated 13.10.2018 Mark ‘D’ is on record to negates the contention of the OP No.1 qua the manufacturing defect in the Mobile set. As per said job-sheet, several defects in the mobile set have been mentioned which are as under:-

LCD Colour fade
Hanging problem
Slow
Re-start sometime.

13. Admittedly, the problem of fading of colouring has been rectified by the OPs by replacement of the LCD screen but the OP No.1 is silent qua the removal of other defects i.e. hanging, slow and restart problem. The OP No.1 in its written statement only speaks about the heating problem of the mobile set which is neither pleaded in the complaint nor the same find mention in the said job-sheet. The OP No.1 has made bare denial of the contentions of the complainant qua the defect in the mobile set, which has no evidentiary value as mere bald assertions which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate, cogent and credible evidence do not carry any evidentiary value. Further, the OP No.2 has preferred not to rebut or controvert the contentions of the complainant as it did not appear before the Commission despite its service and accordingly, it was proceeded ex-parte against vide order dated 27.08.2019.

14. Admittedly, the mobile set is lying in the custody of the OP No.2 even before filing of the present complaint. There is no evidence as to who had inspected the mobile set and who declared that it had no defect in it. Furthermore, we find e-mail conversation made by the complainant on 08.02.2019 with Sh.Atamjit Singh, at

Respected All,

I am hoping that I am writing to the highest level of Samsung Customer Service. It has been a painful experience until now to deal with the Samsung team and service center you have. I have had several conversations, and points of online interactions in dealing with the problems I am facing with my Samsung handset.

That the handset has very critical issues during warranty and for the same I deposited the handset multiple times to my nearest Samsung service center i.e. Mobile Care Samsung Authorised Service Center Panchkula Haryana-134109.

That from past more than 5 months the handset issues are not rectified and nor the handset is delivered to me back.

15. In response to the above email, the OP No.2 Sh.Atamjit Singh has sent the email reply on 09.02.2019 mentioning that the problem of LCD had been solved and now set is working fine and the complainant is not coming to collect the mobile set since last 5 months. The above said email was replied by the complainant regarding the restart, hanging issue but engineer find that the problems of mobile set was due to the defects in the motherboard. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP No.2 have not discussed the other problems of the mobile set i.e. hanging, slow and restart. In view of the aforesaid facts we have no doubt that the mobile set in question had become defective during its warranty period and the OPs are liable to refund its price. Therefore, we conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the OPs while rendering services to the complainant. The Ops No.1 & 2 are liable jointly and severally to compensate the complainant

16. As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-