Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 124.
Instituted on : 17.03.2015.
Decided on : 30.03.2016.
Sh. Ashish s/o Sh. Ajit Singh, R/o 1202, Sector-1, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Manager, Samsung Service Centre Balaji Communication, SCF 187-188, New Huda Complex, Rohtak-124001(Haryana).
- Manager, Head Office, Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, 2nd, 3rd & 4th Floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Digvijay Jakhar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a Samsung mobile Model GT-19082EWZINS, bearing its IMEI No.355886058063200 for the total sale consideration of Rs.17000/- vide Invoice/Bill No.1645 dated 27.08.2014. It is averred that opposite party no.2 is the Head office of the Samsung Mobiles and opposite party no.1 is the authorized service centre of the opposite party no.2. It is averred that the complainant was facing technical problems related to hanging issue, application start open automatically, poor battery life, camera hanging, shutdown without giving any command, software issue, poor range in one sim slot etc. and therefore the complainant went to the service centre many times but every time the officials just formatted it and returned it back to the complainant and many times they never provided any receipt of job sheet to the complainant. It is averred that complainant approached the opposite party no.1 who rectified the faults many times i.e. on 28.01.2015, 19.02.2015, 25.02.2015 & 26.02.2015 but the same could not be rectified and on 27.02.2015 told the complainant that they have to send it at their headquarter for repair due to problem in motherboard. It is averred that despite repeated requests of the complainant, the handset was not repaired by the opposite parties. It is averred that the mobile set in question is having manufacturing defect. Complainant also served a legal notice but no response has been received as yet. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.17000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that complainant has approached the service centre of the company i.e. opposite party No.1 on 28.01.2015 for the first time after six months of purchase of set and the engineer of the company thoroughly checked the unit and no problem was found so the complaint was cancelled by the opposite party no.1 with remarks no problem found but the complainant again approached the opposite party no.1 on 19.02.2015, 27.02.2015 just to create the false evidence and every time no problem was found and only to refresh the unit software was upgraded and no hardware replaced and again put remarks “Handset working fine”. It is averred that the complainant just to create false evidence has approached the O.P.No.1 and every time no problem found and without any technical report the complainant filed the present complaint. It is averred that as there is no problem in the unit and the same is required to be checked by the authorized laboratory hence the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed on this score alone. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 27.08.2014 for a sum of Rs.17000/- as is proved from the bill Ex.C1. It is also not disputed that as per job sheet Ex.C2, the defect in the mobile set appeared on 28.01.2015 and as per job sheets Ex.C2 dated 28.01.2015, Ex.C3 dated 19.02.2015 & Ex.C6 dated 27.02.2015 there were problems of hanging , handset auto off and network problem in the alleged mobile set. Complainant also sent e-mails Ex.C4, Ex.C5, Ex.C7 and Ex.C8 submitting therein that the handset in question was not repaired by the opposite party despite his repeated requests and visits to the service centre. On the other hand contention of ld. counsel for the opposite parties is that there is no problem in the set in question and only the software was upgraded. But to prove its contention, opposite parties have not placed on record any expert evidence to prove that the set in question has no defect. It is also on record that the complainant served a legal notice Ex.C10 upon the opposite parties but the same was not replied. Moreover the defect in the set in question appeared during the warranty period and the set is lying at the shop of the opposite party no.1. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2014(3)CLT178 titled as Krishanpal Singh Vs. Tata Motors & others whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Vehicle repeatedly taken to service station for repairs-The manufacturing defect, must be assumed-Onus of proof shifts upon OP, and it is further held that: “Whenever there is a complaint of manufacturing defect, it should be the bounden duty of the people, like Ops to appoint their own experts who are always available at their beck and call to prove that the car does not suffer from any manufacturing defect” and as per 2014(1)CLT588 titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others Hon’ble Delhi State Commission has held that: “In the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product-if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that it is a fit case where the refund of price is justified.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set. As such it is directed opposite party No.2 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e Rs.17000/-(Rupees seventeen thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 17.03.2015 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
30.03.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
