BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 368 of 2022
Date of Institution: 01.06.2022
Date of Decision : 29.08.2022
Dr. Ikjot Singh aged about 25 years S/o Ajinderpreet, R/o 66, C-Block, Sirsa.
……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. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Manbir Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 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 Galaxy Buds for a sum of Rs.8541/- from the Samsung website vide order ID 33308459973 dated 12.7.2020 and same was delivered to the complainant at Sirsa. The said buds are manufactured by op no.1 and its one year warranty from the date of purchase was given. That Galaxy buds were delivered during COVID and were not working as there was inherent manufacturing defect, resultantly complainant made submission vide transaction number 4323289027 dated 15.4.2021 and called on customer care on 6.5.2021, 16.5.2021, 17.5.2021, 18.5.2021, 20.5.2021, 24.5.2021, 25.5.2021 and after end of COVID period complainant approached op no.2 and he was told that warranty period during the COVID outbreak will not be affected as all the services were suspended and op no.2 will start working after end of COVID and thereafter they will call complainant and send the buds to op no.1 or complainant was asked to submit the buds with op no.2. He was assured that he will be supplied with new buds by op no.1. It is further averred that now ear buds are lying with op no.2 but till date neither defect has been removed nor the buds have been replaced. That on two different occasions, op no.2 one by way of mail and another on mobile of customer centre were approached and requested for removing the defect, but as complainant was assured that his case has been sent for replacement he should wait, but till date despite regular, frequent attempts of contacting with customer care and senior officials of op no.1, buds have not been replaced and now op no.2 has stated that defect cannot be removed and company only on the intervention of court is entertaining such type of matters, hence complainant is having no other option but to knock the door of this Commission. The ops are indulged in unfair trade practice and have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant due to which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the ops to replace the buds or refund the amount of Rs.8541/- alongwith interest from the date of purchase and also to pay compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.
3. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding concealment of material facts, no locus standi, complaint is bad for joinder, non joinder and mis joinder and that complainant has failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/ technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report and in absence of any technical report on record, complainant deserves dismissal on this ground alone. On merits, it is submitted that complainant in regards to complaint regarding the unit in question approached to the service center of company on 15.04.2021 vide job sheet no.4323289027 i.e. after a period of approximately more than 9 months from the date of purchase. It is a noticeable fact that the unit was purchased on 12.07.2020 and complainant only on 15.4.2021 has reported some issue for the first time with ops and on that occasion, the complainant reported sound problem in his unit. The engineer of the service center duly received the unit and checked and problem was resolved by updating software of the unit and unit started working fine. The complainant took the delivery of unit to his full satisfaction. After that, complainant again has approached to the op on 25.5.2021 vide call no.4325018152 and this time reported left ear bud not working problem in the unit. Again the engineer checked the unit and this time found that the left ear bud of the unit needs replacement. The engineer replaced the left ear bud of unit and it started working fine. The complainant took delivery of unit to his full satisfaction. After that, the complainant again has approached to the op on 30.05.2022 vide call no. 4348502413 and this time reported ear phone not getting on problem in the unit. The engineer of the company duly received and deposited the unit and checked the unit, but no such defect was found and after complete checking, it was informed to the complainant that the unit is working fine and requested to take the delivery of unit, but the complainant refused to collect his unit. It is submitted that the service center many times requested to the complainant to collect his suit, but complainant with his ill intention refused to collect the unit. The unit is lying with the service center of the company and is in working condition. The answering op was and is always ready to deliver the unit, but it is the complainant who is not ready to collect the unit, so there is no deficiency in service on part of answering op. It is also submitted that company provides one year warranty on the unit and warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per company policy and warranty means only repair not replacement and also the same is subject to some conditions and warranty of the unit becomes void in case of liquid logged/ water logging, physically damage, serial number missing, tampering and mishandling/ burnt etc. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and dismissal of complaint prayed for.
4. OP no.2 did not appear despite service of notice and was proceeded against exparte.
5. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents i.e. tax invoice Ex.C2, order details Ex.C3, emails Ex.C4, Ex.C5, acknowledgment of service request Ex.C6 and delivery report Ex.C7.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Sahijwani as Ex,R1 and copies of documents i.e. warranty card Ex.R2 and acknowledgements of service request Ex.R3 to Ex.R5.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
8. Admittedly, complainant made order to the op no.1 for purchase of Galaxy Buds on 12.07.2020 and same were delivered to the complainant on 15.7.2020 for a sum of Rs.8541/- and in this regard op no.1 also issued invoice dated 13.07.2020 to the complainant which is placed on record by complainant as Ex.C2. It is also an admitted fact that op no.1 is manufacturer of the said buds and one year warranty of the buds was given to the complainant and op no.2 is service center of op no.1. It is also proved on record that said ear buds became defective during warranty period of one year and complainant time and again reported the defects in the ear buds to the ops. The op no.1 itself has placed on record acknowledgement of service request dated 15.4.2021, 25.5.2021 and 30.5.2022 as Ex.R3 to Ex.R5. In document dated 15.4.2021 Ex.R3, complainant reported the defect of sound/ left side not working and right side sound level low, then in service request dated 25.5.2021 Ex.R4, complainant reported defect of left side ear buds not working and in the service request dated 30.5.2022 Ex.R5, defect of ear buds not turning on was pointed out to op no.1 and since then ear buds are lying with ops. The ops have failed to prove on record that ear buds ever have been made defect free by them or same are not having any defect and the ops have failed to provide after sales services to the complainant which clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part towards the complainant due to which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony. The complainant is therefore, entitled to refund of the price of the ear buds from the ops besides compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to make refund of the amount of Rs.8541/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and to pay further sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. In case ops fail to comply with the above said order within above said stipulated period, the complainant will be entitled to interest on the principal amount of Rs.8541/- at the rate of @7% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. 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: 29.08.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
