Delhi

East Delhi

CC/165/2016

ASHWANI KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

09 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 165/16

 

Shri Ashwani Kumar

S/o Shri Parveen Kumar

R/o 77, Kundan Nagar

Delhi – 110 092                                                           ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

1. Newstar Communication

103/3, Gurdwara Dera Baba Karam Singh Saheb

Patparganj Road, Rashid Market, Delhi – 110 051         

 

2. Samsung Service Centre

Varun Enterprises,

WA-84, Shakarpur

Delhi – 110 092

 

3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

E-11, Jangpura Extension

Delhi – 110 014                                                               …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 02.04.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 09.08.2018

Judgement Passed on: 09.08.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Ashwani Kumar against Newstar Communication (OP-1), Samsung Service Centre, Shakarpur  (OP-2) and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of deficiency in service and negligence. 

2.         The facts in brief are that complainant purchased a Samsung mobile phone, model no., Samsung-E-700-E7-white-358185064405605 on 13.08.2015 by paying a sum of Rs. 16,200/- from Newstar Communication (OP-1). 

            After one month, the complainant noticed the problem like overheating, re-starting and software downloading, in the mobile phone.  Therefore, he visited the Samsung Service Centre (OP-2) on 28.10.2015 and made a complaint regarding non-functioning of phone.  He was assured by officials of service centre that there was issue with software and the same would be removed till evening.  The complainant received a call from service centre and was informed that the motherboard of the mobile had been damaged and the same would be replaced on payment of        Rs. 7,500/-. 

            It was stated that on 29.10.2015, the complainant again visited the service centre (OP-2) and denied to pay an amount of Rs. 7,500/- as the phone was under warranty and requested to return the phone.   OP returned the phone in switched off condition without removing the defect, the complainant was forced to pay Rs. 171/- as OP had refused to return the same without payment of above mentioned amount.  The complainant demanded the phone in running condition from OP. 

            On 30.10.2015, the complainant made several complaints to Delhi Govt. Mediation Centre, CEO- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) and also at customer care centre, but no response was received from OPs.

            It was further stated that on 03.11.2015, the complainant made a complaint to OP-1 through email in response to which he received the reply that his mobile phone was repaired and was ready for delivery from OP-2.  When he reached the service centre of OP-2, he came to know that the mobile had not been repaired, further OP-2’s staff misbehaved with the complainant and told that the handset would be given at Delhi Govt. Mediation Centre. 

            It was also stated that as per order of Mediation Centre dated 25.01.2016, M/s. Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) was to get the mobile repaired free of cost on or before 20 days from the date of order alongwith two months extended warranty, but OP-2 delivered the handset to the complainant on 27.02.2016 as delayed by 14 days.

            Thereby, the complainant was harassed and tortured mentally by the illegal acts done by OPs.  Hence, he has prayed for direction to OPs to replace the mobile phone with a new mobile; to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and torture and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation.

             The complainant has annexed copy of retail invoice dated 13.08.2015, copy of acknowledgement of service request dated 28.10.2015, copy of complaint dated 02.11.2015, reply to email dated 03.11.2015 given by senior executive of OP-3, screen shot of messages dated 26.11.2015 and 07.12.2015 sent by OPs, settlement before Delhi Govt. Mediation Centre of date 25.01.2016 and letter of satisfaction dated 27.02.2016 regarding delivery the handset alongwith complaint.

 3.        OP-1 did not put the appearance inspite of notice; hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

            During the course of proceedings, counsel for OP-3 stated that Samsung Service Centre (OP-2) has been closed.  Since Samsung Service Centre (OP-2) has been closed, they were deleted from array of parties. 

            OP-3, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., filed their reply stating that the complainant approached the OP first time on 28.10.2015 and reported an issue pertaining to the restart of the phone.  The complainant  was told that there were liquid logged in the product and accordingly, an estimate was prepared which was not approved by the complainant.  The complainant again visited on 16.12.2015 with the heating issue for which again complainant was informed regarding the liquid logging in the product alongwith repair estimate, which was also not approved by the complainant.  The delay in compliance of settlement order was due to non availability of mother board.

            It was stated that as per settlement order of Mediation Centre, they repaired the product of the complainant free of cost with extended warranty of two months which was duly repaired to the satisfaction of complainant.  Following the mediation order, the complainant again visited the service centre on 24.05.2017 with auto-restart issue and auto-calling issue and the service centre technicians replaced the concerned parts of the phone and handed over the same to the complainant.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.       The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit where he has got himself examined.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of retail invoice no, 3294 dated 13.08.2015 (Ex. CW-1/1), copy of acknowledgement of service request dated 28.10.2015 (Ex. CW-1/2), complaint dated 03.11.2015 (Ex. CW-1/3), reply to email dated 03.11.2015 given by senior executive of OP-3 (Ex. CW-1/4), messages dated 26.11.2015 and 07.12.2015 sent by OPs (Ex. CW-1/5), order passed by Delhi Govt. Mediation Centre dated 25.01.2016 (Ex. CW-1/6) and letter dated 27.02.2016 (Ex. CW-1/7).

            In defence, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) have examined Shri Anindya Bose, AR of OP, who has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS.          

5.         We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  The complainant has alleged that there was manufacturing defect in the product manufactured by OP-3.  He has relied on Ex.CW1/2, which is the job sheet dated 28.10.2015, subsequent to which he got his handset repaired free of cost vide settlement order dated 25.01.2016, for which he has signed Letter of Satisfaction (LOS) dated 29.02.2016, but, at the same time he has not placed on record any service request to show that again there was some problem with the handset, subsequent to repairs as per settlement before Mediation Centre. 

            As the complainant has failed to prove his averments, the complaint of the complainant stands dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

        President