| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 484 of 7.12.2016 Decided on: 27.9.2017 Atul Bansal S/o Sh.Narinder Kumar Bansal, aged 18 years, r/o 44-A, Tafazalpura, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., through its President/M.D.,availahle at A-25, Ground Floor, front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.
Email: support.india@samsung.com - ‘Kohli’Mobile Zone, through its Prop./Partner, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala.
- Dixon Electronics, Samsung Service Centre, through its prop/partner, near Hotel Flyover, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Amit Kumar Bedi,Advocate,counsel for complainant. Sh.J.S.Sandhu,Advocate,counsel for opposite party No.1 None for Opposite party no.2. Opposite party No.3 ex-parte. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant purchased one ‘Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge’ smart phone for a sum of Rs.52,700/- from Op no.2 on 11.7.2016.The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.5000/- to Op no.2 to get the same insured but Op no.2 did not issued any receipt for the insurance amount of Rs.5000/-.At the time of debiting the price of the phone, OP no.2 without knowledge and information of the complainant charged 2% over and above the price i.e. instead of debiting an amount of Rs.52700/- it debited an amount of Rs.53500/-from the account of the complainant. It is averred that just after one week of the said purchase, the display of the mobile phone went off and the complainant approached Op no.2, who replaced/swapped the mobile phone of the complainant with a new one and also issued a new invoice dated 20.7.2016 containing new IMEI number 357327/07/172543/2 & 357327/07/172543/0 of the swapped / replaced mobile phone. It is further averred that after almost 1 ½ month of using the said mobile phone again the screen went off all of a sudden and the phone was rendered useless and the complainant again approached OP no.2. Initially Op no.2 refused to entertain the complainant but on persuasion it agreed for either refund or exchange of the mobile phone, whichever the company allowed. The complainant visited Op no.2 time and again but OP__ kept on lingering on the matter. Ultimately on 19.10.2016, when the complainant visited OP no.2, he was told to visit the authorized service centre of the company as his mobile phone was lying there. The complainant was astonished to know that he had given the mobile phone to OP no.2 for exchange/replacement and not for repair and when the complainant visited OP no.3, he was told to pay a sum of Rs.3500/- for the repair of the mobile phone but on query by the complainant to service center people, they told the complainant that the mobile phone was water-logged and as such the ‘warranty is void’ and now the complainant would have to pay a sum of Rs.3500/- for its repair (as per the terms of insurance)else he would not get the mobile phone. It is further averred that the mobile phone in question is a flagship premium phone of Samsung and is claimed by Samsung to be water and dust resistant. The statement of the complainant on the website reads as, “The Galaxy S7 and S7 edge go everywhere you go. In the rain, the shower, or the pool for up to 30 minutes in a depth of 1.5m or below. We have also worked out how to completely seal off the inside components while keeping micro USB ports, earphone jacks open; so you would not have to fiddle with extra caps or covers”. As such the plea and the demand raised by the service centre people is totally wrong and illegal. Finding no other solution, the complainant got served a legal notice to the OPs on 24.10.2016 but to no use. Ultimately, the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act), 1986.
- On notice, Op no.1 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. Whereas OP no.2 appeared through counsel and after filing its written version did not lead evidence after availing many opportunities and his evidence was closed by order OP no.3 failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against ex-parte.
- In its written statement, the plea taken by OP No.1 is that the mobile phone in question was submitted with Op No.3 on 21.10.2016 vide job sheet i.e. Ex.R1 and it was found ‘water logged’ due to which it became ‘warranty void’ as such the repair of the mobile phone will be done on chargeable basis. It has further submitted that the mobile phone in question was purchased on 20.7.2016 and it was deposited with the OP No.3 on 21.10.2016, where it was found to be ‘water logged’, as the PBA board of the handset was found to be damaged due to water logging, which shows that there is no inherent defect in the handset and rather it has been handled by the complainant leading to damage. As such OPs cannot be said to be deficiency in service and the repair of the mobile phone will be done on chargeable basis as per the warranty terms and conditions which the complainant refused to pay. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In its written version, OP no.2 has submitted that warranty if any, is of the company and it has no concern with the same. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA, affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C16 and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for Op no.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Anindya Bose, Dy. G.M. of OP alongwith document ExOP1 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from OP no.2 on11.7.2016 for a sum of Rs.52,700/- .Within a week of the said purchase the display of the mobile phone went off and the complainant approached OP no.2, who replaced the mobile phone of the complainant with a new one and also issued a new invoice dated 20.7.2016, with new IMEI number i.e. Ex.C2.Within a period of 1 ½ month, the display of the new mobile phone also went off and the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.2 in the month of September,2016.On 19.10.2016, OP no.2 told the complainant to visit the OP no.3 as the mobile phone was lying with it. When the complainant visited OP no.3, it told the complainant that since the mobile phone in question was ‘water logged’, its warranty stood void as such the complainant will have to pay a sum of Rs.3500/- as repair charges otherwise he would not get his mobile phone. Whereas Ex.C15 shows that the mobile phone is water resistant.
- In the present case, the OP no.1 has concealed the fact that the mobile phone was originally purchased on 11.7.2016 and it was replaced on 20.7.2016 vide a new invoice with new IMEI number. Moreover, the plea taken by OP no.1 that the mobile phone was ‘water logged’ as such its warranty became void is not correct. As per Ex.C15, the mobile phone of the complainant was water resistant. OP’s submission that the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.3 on 21.10.2016 vide job sheet i.e. Ex.R1 is also baseless as the OP has failed to place the same i.e. job sheet on record. Since September 2016, the said mobile phone has been lying with OP who has neither rectified nor returned the mobile phone of the complainant. The problem occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period and the OPs were bound the replace the same which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Initially the mobile phone stopped functioning within a week of purchasing the same and the OP replaced it with a new one. The same problem again cropped up in the new mobile phone within 1 ½ month of using the same which shows that there must be some inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile phone. These days mobile phone is a basic necessity .The complainant spent a huge amount for purchasing the mobile phone and for the last one year the complainant has been deprived of using the same as the mobile phone is lying with the OPs which amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to the OPs to refund the price of the mobile phone i.e. Rs.52700/- to the complainant. OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED:27.9.2017 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
