Delhi

North East

CC/99/2019

Jitendar Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung Service Centre - Opp.Party(s)

27 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.99/19

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

Sh. Jitendar Kumar Sharma

S/o Sh. Murari Lal Sharma

R/o F 28, Street No. 1

West Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094

 

 

 

 

Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

 

1.

 

 

 

2.

 

 

 

 

3.

Samsung Service Center,

Vaishanavi Enterprises

B-3/48/A, Ist Floor, Yamuna Vihar,

Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053

 

Mohanji Electronics

F-49-A, Main road, Near Street No.8

Near F Block Bus Stand,

Jagat Puri, Delhi-110051

 

Head Office Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre,

Golf Course Road, Sector-43,

DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        Opposite Parties

 

 

           

               DATE OF INSTITUTION:

       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:

                          DATE OF ORDER:

08.11.19

18.01.23

27.03.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 against the Samsung Service center (Opposite Party No.1), Mohanji Electronics, seller of mobile phone (Opposite Party No.2) and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer (Opposite Party No. 3).

 Case of the Complainant

  1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant bought a Samsung mobile phone bearing model no. A750FZBDINS on 23.01.19 for a sum of Rs. 18,990/- vide invoice no. 5390. The Complainant stated that the phone started to show some problems, so, on 30.01.19, Complainant visited Opposite Party 1 Samsung service centre reporting those problems and job sheet was issued. It is further alleged that the Complainant again visited the service centre as the display of the mobile got cracked automatically while there were no indication of dropping or hitting. For which, the Complainant was asked to pay Rs. 4,000/- then after talking to head office technical team, he got 50 % discount and Complainant paid Rs. 1,773/- vide invoice no. VAI0005996 dated 12.02.19. The Complainant stated that after repairing of display, phone started to show problems for which he was told by head office technical department to deposit the mobile in service centre and the same was done vide bearing job sheet no. 4277888459 dated 20.02.19. Accordingly, the Complainant deposited his phone to the above said service centre. After some days Complainant was offered to replace the phone by head office technical team but Complainant requested to refund the amount For that, the Complainant was issued a Samsung voucher of Rs. 18,990/- from service centre and Complainant used that voucher to bought newly launched phone i.e. Samsung A 50 phone. The Complainant bought Samsung A 50 phone bearing model no. SM-A505F IMEI No.1. 354471102857815 and IMEI No.2 354471102857813 dated 07.03.19 for a sum of Rs.19,990/- vide invoice bearing no. ME/2018-19/1704 from Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant stated that the phone again started to show various problems and he visited Opposite Party No.1 service centre of Samsung on 20.03.19 bearing job sheet no. 4279354150 and the service centre returned the phone to Complainant with remarks “no problem found” and thereafter Complainant registered a complaint on consumer court helpline no vide docket no. 235617. On 27.03.19 Complainant again visited Opposite Party No.1 vide job sheet no. 4279721307 and again mentioned that issue in which main issue was heating which was also mentioned in job sheet no. 4279721307. Then, the Complainant received a call from samsung head office and told him to leave the phone at service centre for some days and after one week Complainant handed over his mobile to service centre but problems were not resolved. On 27.04.19 Complainant again visited service centre of Samsung for problem of “very high heating issue, sometime network not shown, handset restart automatically & battery backup too low” bearing job sheet no. 4281616166. On 02.05.19 the Complainant sent a letter to head of department of Samsung and Vaishnavi service centre vide indian post no. ED408351627IN and ED408351613IN. On 14.05.19 the Complainant received call from samsung head office and requested to keep phone with service centre for one day. Complainant visited service centre and mentioned all the problems vide job sheet no. 4282650765. On 03.06.19 Complainant phone display became blank then Complainant visited service centre of Opposite Party and mentioned the issue bearing job sheet no. 4283890343 dated 03.06.19. The service centre refused to repair the phone as it was under warranty but offered to repair phone on paying Rs. 8,000/-.The Complainant stated that phone is in warranty for period of 07.03.19 to 07.03.20. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for the cost of the phone i.e. Rs. 19,990/- and Rs. 30,000/- for mental harassment. He has also prayed for Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
  2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 despite service of notice on 02.12.19. Therefore, both the Opposite Parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 08.04.22.

Case of the Opposite Party No.3

  1. The Opposite Party No.3, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer, contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No.3 that it is admitted that the Complainant purchased the handset in question from their service centre and the handset carried one year warranty. It is further submitted that under the warranty policy, if the product is damaged, the warranty shall be void for breach of terms and conditions and the product shall be repaired on chargeable basis. It is further submitted that the Complainant visited their service centre reporting issues in the handset, however, every time, their engineer inspected and returned the set with remark “No defect found”. It is also stated that on 03.06.2019, the Complainant again visited their service centre with the complaint of blank display, their engineer inspected and found patch on display and informed the Complainant that due to physical damage, the repair shall be chargeable as the warranty has been lapsed. Thereafter, the Complainant took back the handset and filed the present false and frivolous complaint. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.3 is ready to resolve the issue under the warranty policy and there is not any kind of deficiency on their part, hence, the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.3

  1. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.3 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.3 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint. The Complainant alleged that engineers of Opposite Party No.3 never paid heed to the problems of the Complainant and on the contrary mishandled the phone and attempted to mint money out of the Complainant for the fault of their engineers. Hence, there has been deficiency in services on their part.

Evidence of the Complainant

  1. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.3

  1. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.3 has filed affidavit of Shri Sandeep Sahajiwani, AR of Opposite Party No.3, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.3 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

  1. We have heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Party No.3. We have also perused the file carefully.
  2. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased the subject mobile from the dealer of the Opposite Party No.3 and the mobile set started developing faults for which the Complainant visited the service center, Opposite Party No.2. It is alleged that he visited the service center several times for the faults in the handset but every time, the service center instead of repairing, remarked ‘no problem found’ and returned the phone. It is further alleged that on 03.06.2019, the Complainant’s phone display became blank and he visited the service center. It is alleged that the service center told the Complainant that it was not covered under the warranty due to physical damage and refused to repair the phone as a part of warranty but offered to repair on chargeable basis.The Complainant alleged that engineers of Opposite Party No.3 never paid heed to the problems of the Complainant and on the contrary mishandled the phone and attempted to mint money out of the Complainant for the fault of their engineers. Hence, there has been deficiency in services on their part.
  3. On the other hand the case of the Opposite Party No.3 is that though, the subject handset was carrying one year warranty, but under the warranty policy, if the product is damaged, the warranty shall be void for breach of terms and conditions and the product shall be repaired on chargeable basis. It is submitted  that on 03.06.2019, when the Complainant visited their service centre with the complaint of blank display, their engineer inspected and found patch on display and informed the Complainant that due to physical damage, the repair shall be chargeable as the warranty has been lapsed. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.3 is ready to resolve the issue under the warranty policy and there is not any kind of deficiency on their part.
  4.  From the perusal of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, it is revealed that it is not disputed that the subject mobile was carrying one year warranty. The contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party No.3 did not repair his handset in spite of faults cannot be accepted as the perusal of job sheets filed, shows that no defect was found. Further, the perusal of job-sheet dated 03.06.2019 shows that the technician remarked “Patch in display, internally OCTA damages” under Repair description column. The Complainant himself has admitted that he visited the service centre when the display went blank and the service centre told him that there was a physical damage and it will only be repaired on chargeable basis. The Opposite Party has corroborated their contention of physical damage by filing the job sheet dated 03.08.2023 and also by photographs of the subject handset showing the physical damage. However, the Complainant has not been able to prove his contention that the said physical damage was caused at the end of the service centre and not at his end. Hence, the said contention is also liable to be rejected and the inference is to be drawn that the physical damage was there when the Complainant submitted the phone with the service centre.
  5. The perusal of the material on record shows that the terms of warranty policy clearly mentions that in case of any physical damage, warranty conditions are not applicable and repairs will be done on the chargeable basis only.
  6.  The Complainant has not been able to prove that there were defects in the handset falling under the warranty policy which were not repaired by the Opposite Party No.3.  Also, the Complainant has failed to prove that the physical damage was not caused at his end but at the hands of service centre. On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.3 has clearly established that the physical damage renders the warranty lapsed and repair could be done on chargeable basis which they have offered as admitted by the Complainant himself.
  7. In view of the above facts and discussion, we are of the considered view that the Complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of services on the part of any of the Opposite Parties, hence, no case is made out for deficiency in services against any of the Opposite Parties.
  8.  Thus, in view thereof, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
  9. Order announced on 27.03.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)

          Member

(Adarsh Nain)

Member

     (Surinder Kumar Sharma)

President

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.