Delhi

East Delhi

CC/389/2013

Sachin Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

12 Jul 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI-92

 

CC No. 389/2013:

In the matter of:

Sh. Sachin Jain

S/o. Sh. Ramesh Chandra Jain

R/o. X – 2044,  Gali No. 2,

Rajgarh Extension,

Delhi – 110 031

Complainant

Vs

Samsung Smart Cafe

Shop No.9, Shikha Market,

Gandhi Nagar, Delhi – 110 031

         

          Samsung Lakshya Tech. Solutions Ltd.

          230, II^nd Floor, Sukhlal Market, Near Madhuban Chowk,

          Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034

 

          Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. Company

Jasola Vihar, I^stFloor, Corporate Tower,

Jasola District Centre, Delhi – 110 044

Respondents

 

Date of Admission : 21/05/2013

                                                                                    Date of Order          : 20/04/2015

ORDER

 

Ms.Poonam Malhotra, Member:

 

            This complaint has been filed with the allegation that on 23/10/2012 the complainant purchased a new Samsung 1589 Galaxy Ace Mobile handset for a sum of Rs.12,700/- from Respondent No.I.  At the time of purchasing the handset its touch was not functioning properly and this fact was brought to its notice but he declined to accept that the touch of the handset was defective.  On the assurance of the respondent to accept the return of handset within a day or two of its purchase or refund of its price the complainant purchased the handset.   The complainant alleges to have shown the handset to his friend who told him that the touch of the handset is defective the complainant approached the Respondent No.I who while accepting the defect in the touch of the handset in question asked him to deposit the same and it would get the defect rectified but the complainant insisted upon its replacement with a new handset or refund of its price.  The Respondent No.I turned down his request and left with no other option the complainant acceded to its offer to get the handset repaired.  The handset was submitted at the Service Centre with an assurance to return it back duly repaired after seven days but in vain.  After the expiry of the said period of seven days and further period of fifteen days the handset was returned to the complainant after repairs and it was told that the software of the handset had corrupted due to which its touch was giving problem but the problem has been resolved so this problem would not recur but when he returned home its touch was not working again.  After two days i.e., on 15/11/2012, the complainant submitted the handset to Respondent No.II against a job sheet issued by it and he was asked to collect the duly repaired handset after ten days but it could not repair the same.  The complainant checked the same at the time of receiving it from Respondent No.II and brought this fact into its knowledge and its executive remarked that its repairs would be repeated and retained the said handset for repairs but it failed to rectify the defect therein.  The complainant took his handset back and on 04/02/2013 lodged an online complaint with Core Centre vide Complaint No. 52783/2/2013 but no action was taken against it.  Aggrieved by day to day repairs the complainant alleges to have been harassed mentally and financially for which he needs to be compensated.  It is in these circumstances, the complainant has prayed for the refund of Rs.12,700/-, the cost of the  handset with Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation. 

            In reply to the notices served upon to the respondents only Respondent No.III put up appearance but no written statement filed

            Evidence by way of affidavit filed by the complainant and Sh. Suresh Kumar on behalf of the respondents in support of their respective cases.

            Heard the Ld. Cls. for the complainant & Respondent No.III and perused the record.

             The fact of purchase of a new Samsung 1589 Galaxy Ace Mobile handset with IMEI No. A0000039A51503 for a sum of Rs.12,700/- from Respondent No.I on 23/10/2012 is evident from the copy of the Retail Invoice No. MT/RI/12/02170 dated 23/10/2012 placed on record by the complainant.  It is also evident from the copy of the Work Order No. SM12/2710461 dated 25/11/2012 that the handset had been submitted by the complainant to Respondent No.II with the complaint of Touch not working properly and it was confirmed by the Service Engineer as it was reported on the said Work Order by the Engineer of Respondent No.II that there was problem in the Touch of the mobile handset in question.  Further, it is also evident from the said Work Order wherein it is written “Repeat” that the Respondent No.II had retained the handset for repeat repairs.  This authenticates the statement of the complainant that when he checked the handset at the time of receiving it from Respondent No.II he brought this fact into its knowledge that its touch was not working properly and its executive remarked that its repairs would be repeated and had retained the said handset for repairs to rectify the defect therein.  It is further submitted by the complainant that the Respondent No.II had failed to rectify the touch problem in the handset and he took the handset back from it.  It is evident from the record that the complainant had lodged a complaint vide Complaint No. 52783/2/2013 with Core Centre, a Consumer Online Resource & Empowerment Centre (Supported by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of India) on 04/02/2013 but no action was taken against it.  Aggrieved by the inaction of the Core Centre in redressing his complaint the complainant approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.  Thus, there is no room for doubt that the handset in question was not working properly all throughout.  Had the issue been resolved, the complainant would not have run from pillar to post for seeking redressal of his grievance.  Merely stating that they had resolved the issue and had assured of some solution will not be adequate. The respondent had erred to place on record cogent documentary evidence to show that it had ever taken any steps to resolve the issue in view of the assurance alleged to have been given by it.  In view of the aforementioned observations and in the absence of any credible evidence, the contention of the respondents that they had resolved the said issue and assured of some solution cannot be accepted. The respondents should have offered him alternatives to settle the issue in full and final.  The fact that the complainant had filed the present complaint only shows that he was constrained to file to it and litigation was thrust upon him due to the deficient services provided by the respondents.

Further, the respondents have failed to substantiate their allegation that the defect in the mobile handset was the result of negligence and mishandling by the complainant. Not an iota of evidence has been filed on record by the respondents in support of their contention.  In the absence of cogent documentary evidence mere bald allegations of the respondents would not suffice. 

Taking into consideration the above discussion and observations made supra, we arrive at an inference that the defect in the touch of the handset was an inherent manufacturing defect which was beyond repairs and we allow this complaint and direct the Respondent No.III to refund Rs.12,700/-, the cost of the handset to the complainant.  We, further, award Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the harassment meted out to him and this amount shall include the cost of this litigation.  The amount of compensation and cost shall be paid jointly or severally by the respondents.  If it is not paid within 45 days from the date of this order then the total amount of Rs.17,700/- shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till it is finally paid to the complainant. 

Copy of the order to be sent to all the parties as per rules.

 

 

 

(Poonam Malhotra)                                                                                     (N.A.Zaidi)           Member                                                                                              President