BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 608 of 2022
Date of Institution: 30.09.2022
Date of Decision : 05.04.2023
Amit Kumar aged about 35 years son of Shri Ami Chand Sihag, R/o 489, Sector-20, HUDA, Sirsa. Mobile No. 80591-09815.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizons Centre, Golf Course road, Sector 43, DLF PH-V Gurgaon- 122202 through its MD/ Authorized person.
2. A.N. Telecom, Near Gali Khai Wali, Hissaria Bazar, Sirsa Customer Care/ Service Centre, Samsung Manufacturing Co. through its Incharge.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 35 of C.P. Act, 2019
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR…….PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA ………MEMBER
Present: Sh. A.C. Sihag, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant purchased new Samsung Galaxy Mobile Model Number SM-M215G/DS name Galaxy M21 2021 Edition from Samsung website vide order dated 3.10.2021 and same was delivered to complainant at Sirsa. Thus complainant hired the services of op no.1 for consideration against payment of Rs.12,499/- vide invoice No. ATX1-54431 dated 3.10.2021. The said mobile is manufactured by op no.2 and its one year warranty from the date of purchase was also given. It is further averred that complainant is being harassed and humiliated by deficient act on the part of ops as mobile in question started heating and there were also defects of auto switch off, hanging, voice issue etc and said defects developed after three months of its purchase. That despite repeated visits by complainant to op no.2, the op no.2 without issuing any job card treated it to be a case of software issue, but complainant was unable to use it, resultantly after few months it again became a white elephant for complainant and complainant approached time and again and lastly with the intervention of President of Bar complainant was attended by the owner of service centre/ op no.2 who asked complainant to deposit the mobile set with service centre on 29.08.2022 and he was told that few parts are defective. The job card was not issued to complainant in order to avoid their deficient act but however message in this regard was received to the complainant. It is further averred that complainant received another message on the same day that part is requested for service request and thereafter he again received message on 07.09.2022 that part is in transit and thereafter on 8.9.2022 he received message that his product has been repaired and is ready for collection. Thereafter, set was delivered to him on 9.9.2022 and he was told that mother board, charging point and other parts has been changed and now it will not create any trouble. That even thereafter the mobile set of complainant has become trouble shooter for complainant and is again giving same problem for which above said parts were changed but ops have failed to redress the grievances of the complainant despite his several visits and requests sent through email. The op no.1 has manufactured a defective mobile and op no.2 has failed to give proper services to the complainant and have caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Hence, this complaint has been filed seeking refund of the price of the mobile in question alongwith interest besides compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
3. On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding no cause of action, suppression of true and material facts and that complainant has failed to prove alleged manufacturing/ technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has concocted a false story. In fact, the complainant in regards to complaint regarding the unit in question approached to company for first and last time on 6.9.2022 and reported Power auto restart and battery backup issue in his unit. The engineer of service center of answering op thoroughly checked the unit and it was found that the mother board and charging jack of the unit need replacement. The engineer replaced the mother board and charging jack of the unit and unit started working fine and complainant took the delivery of his unit after being fully satisfied and signed the receiving on the job sheet digitally. Thereafter, no issue has been reported by the complainant and after that answering company came to know about the present complaint. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 did not appear despite service and therefore, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
5. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex. C1 and copies of documents i.e. tax invoice Ex.C2, packing slip Ex.C3, emails Ex.C4 to Ex.C7, affidavit of Sh. Ved Parkash Arora, Advocate Ex.C8, affidavit of Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate Ex. C9.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Sahijwani, authorized person cum employee as Ex.R1, copy of warranty card Ex.R2, acknowledgment of service request Ex.R3 and digital signature Ex.R4.
7. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.1 and have perused the case file.
8. Learned counsel for complainant contended that mobile in question went out of order during warranty period and despite repairs by op no.2 same could not be made defect free and same is having manufacturing defect and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 has contended that proper services were provided to the complainant within warranty period as per warranty conditions and mother board and charging jack of the mobile were replaced and mobile in question started working fine and thereafter no issue has been reported by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
10. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. From the tax invoice Ex.C9, it is proved on record that on 03.10.2021 complainant purchased the mobile in question from op no.1 through online services of amazon for a sum of Rs.12,499/- and mobile in question was delivered to the complainant at Sirsa. It is also proved on record that mobile in question was handed over to op no.2 for repair on 06.09.2022 i.e. within warranty period and it was repaired as it developed defects and even its major parts i.e. mother board and charging jack were replaced and mobile was returned back to the complainant on 09.09.2022 as is evident from document Ex.R3. But still the complainant is alleging same problems in the mobile in question due to manufacturing defect and has placed on file email in this regard sent to op no.1 as Ex.C7 and has also placed on file his affidavit as well as affidavits of Sh. Ved Parkash Arora and Sh. R.K. Mehta as Ex.C8 and Ex.C9 in which they have deposed that mobile set started giving same problem for which parts were changed earlier but op no.2 was not ready to entertain the grievances of complainant. Though, op no.1 has taken the objection that no expert report has been placed on file but since the mobile in question was repaired by engineer of care centre of ops and they have also not preferred to file any report of their expert that mobile was repaired properly and is functioning without any defect, therefore objection of op no.1 in this regard is overruled. The op no.1 is liable to return the price of the mobile in question after deducting depreciation amount as per warranty conditions which provides that under certain conditions where warranty obligations cannot be met, depreciation will be applicable on the existing product. Since the mobile was purchased by complainant on 3.10.2021 and it is proved on record that mobile in question was repaired on 09.09.2022, therefore, op no.1 is liable to refund 50% of the cost of the mobile in question to the complainant besides payment of amount of compensation to the complainant for harassment.
11. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay the amount of Rs.6250/- (i.e. 50% of the amount of Rs.12,499/- of the mobile) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which op no.1 will be liable to pay the above said amount of Rs.6250/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the op no.1 to further pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within above period of 45 days. The complainant will have to deposit the mobile in question to op no.2 within time against proper receipt. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 05.04.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
