Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 490.
Instituted on : 23.08.2022.
Decided on : 14.09.2023.
Deepak Jindal age 26 years, s/o Sh. Ashok Jindal, R/o H.No.1025/16, New Janta Colony, Kachha Beri Road, Rohtak Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. Through its CMD Block C, Sector 81, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh 201305.
- B2X Services Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager, Jain Mansion HUDA Complex, Rohtak District, Rohtak-124001(HR).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sachin Jindal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had purchased a Mobile Phone of SAMSUNG Company vide order No. 402-1820313-5810703 on 21/08/2021 against payment of Rs.12499/- through AMAZON.IN online channel with one year Guarantee/Warranty delivered on 28/08/2021 for personal use. But just after its purchase in the month of Sep. 2021 the screen of phone was all of a sudden blank. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 to fix the problem and they only set the phone on factory reset and retuned the same without any job card and told that it will work proper in future. After reset of phone the same problem appeared again and again. Lastly, on 02/07/2022 the opposite party No.2 told that there is problem in phone screen and required replacement. The opposite party No. 2 also told that it is chargeable services and not covered under guarantee/warranty whereas the screen of phone was never damaged in any manner and phone was within warranty. On 02/07/2022 complainant deposited his phone for service and the opposite party No.2 charged Rs.3,952/- for changing screen and told that there is guarantee of three months for the screen. But, after one week of replacement of screen, same problem appeared again. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 and they told that screen is not working and required change against payment. Complainant repeatedly requested his complaint on 09/08/2022, 12/08/2022 and lastly on 17/08/2022 with the O.P. No.2 but they were not ready to register the complaint and not to return or rectify the defects in the phone without any charges. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.12499/- plus Rs.3952/- alongwith interest @ 12%, compensation of Rs.50000/- on account mental agony, harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that as per record of Samsung company, the complainant reported some alleged issue for the first time with service center on 30.05.2022 i.e. after a period of approximate more than 9 months from the date of purchase. Prior to the date 30.05.2022, the complainant never deposited his unit with the service center for any alleged issue. From the above mentioned facts, it is evident that the complainant has used his product for approximate more than 9 month and averments of complaint regarding defect from very beginning are nothing but a concocted story. On 30.05.2022 the complainant approached the service center and reported no display/blank display problem in his unit. The engineer of the service center duly received the unit and checked and it was found that the LCD & Charging Jack of the unit is required to be replaced and the same were replaced free of cost. After that complainant again approached the service center on 02.07.2022 and again reported display/LCD damage issue in the unit. The engineer checked the unit and found that the display of the unit is damaged/broken and needs replacement. The damage was not covered under warranty, complainant agreed for the same and accordingly the display of the unit got replaced and the unit started working fine. After that no problem has been reported by the complainant in regard to his unit. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence on dated 13.06.2023. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on dated 21.07.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The perusal of the bill Ex.C1 shows that the complainant had purchased the Mobile in question on dated 21.08.2021. As per E-receipt Ex.C2 dated 02.07.2022, opposite parties charged Rs.3952/- from the complainant on account of replacement of display whereas the mobile in question was under warranty period. On the other hand contention of the opposite parties is that the damage was not covered under warranty. But to prove the same, opposite parties have only placed on record service job sheets Ex.R2 & Ex.R3. As per Ex.R2 it is submitted that there was defect of “display/handset on but display not shown”. As per job sheet Ex.R3, there was a defect of : “display/display damage/full damage”. But to prove the same neither any report of technical person nor any photograph has been placed on record. No supporting affidavit of the engineer is placed on record. Moreover, it is the complaint of complainant that after replacement of display on paid basis, the mobile in question is not working properly. Hence the charging of repair charges and not repairing the mobile properly during the warranty period is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the opposite party No.1 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 50% depreciation on it (Rs.12499/- les 50% =Rs.6250/-) alongwith the amount of Rs.3952/- charged illegally from the complainant during warranty period i.e. total Rs.10202/-(say Rs.10200/- rounded off)
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.10200/-(Rupees ten thousand and two hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9%p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 23.08.2022 till its realization and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.1.
7. 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:
14.09.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
................................................
Vijender Singh, Member
