BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 183 of 2022
Date of Institution: 17.03.2022
Date of Decision : 15.09.2023
Anubhav Dahiya (aged about 25 years) son of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, resident of village Sultanpuria, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. Savex Technologies Private Limited, B-56 B, Ground Floor & First Floor, Sector-7, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh- 201301 through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.
2. Samsung Service Centre, Prakash Ratna Complex Street, Barnala Road, Near Bhuman Shah Chowk, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Samsung Head Office: 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase 5, Sector 43, Gurugram, Haryana- 122202 through its Director/ Manager/ Authorized Signatory.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 35 of C.P. Act, 2019
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR…….PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASHT TUTEJA ………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Mukesh Godara, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
Opposite parties no.1 and 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 op no.1 is authorized dealer of Samsung company, op no.2 is the care centre of Samsung company and op no.3 is the manufacturing company. That complainant purchased a mobile handset make Samsung Model Galaxy S21 5G colour black from op no.1 through online and op no.1 charged an amount of Rs.66,749.05 which was paid by him through online transaction to op no.1. The op no.1 sent the mobile to complainant vide invoice dated 20.03.2021 and had given full guarantee of one year. It is further averred that since last six months the complainant was shocked to notice that there were major defects in the mobile set as mobile suddenly gets switched off while working and on detecting the said defect he immediately approached to op no.2 which after checking the mobile set stated that there is major defect in the mobile and they assured that they will sort out the said problem. That thereafter complainant made several rounds to op no.2 but they put off the matter with one pretext or the other and op no.2 bluntly refused to remove the problem or to replace the same with new one whereas mobile is well within warranty period. It is further averred that due to act and conduct of ops the complainant has undergone unnecessary harassment and mental tension and he has to spend another amount of Rs.10,000/- for purchasing another mobile set because the ops failed to redress the grievance of complainant within time. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the ops to replace the mobile with new one or in the alternate to refund the amount of Rs.66,749.05 alongwith interest and also to pay compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/- and also to pay miscellaneous charges.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to ops. Ops no.1 and 2 despite notice failed to appear and therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.
4. On notice, op no.3 appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, concealment of material facts, locus standi, complaint is bad for joinder, non joinder and mis joinder. It is also submitted that complainant alleges some defect in the product which cannot be determined on the simpliciter submissions of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. That it is settled position of law that onus to prove the alleged defect is upon the complainant by way of expert opinion/ cogent evidence and same is mandatory under Section 38 (2) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to prove the allegations/ averments made by complainant. The complainant has miserably 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, the complaint deserves dismissal on this ground alone. It is further submitted that as per the records of answering op, the complainant has not registered any complaint to the service center of answering company. The Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. has an online system to enter all claims/ complaints vide IEMI/ Sr. no. in each and every case but in the present complaint as per limited details mentioned in the complaint, no complaint number/ job sheet number, or any proof of the fact that complainant ever registered any complaint with the answering company has been provided by complainant and no details found in the online system of the company which means that complainant has never registered any complaint with any of the service center of answering op. It is further submitted that answering company provides free of cost services/ repair to its customers within the warranty period of one year from date of purchase/ activation of unit and in case the unit is found to be out of warranty i.e. violating any conditions of warranty (damage or liquid logged/ tampered), the services would be provided on paid basis as per the warranty policy conditions. That answering company or its service center never refused to provide services to the complainant as per warranty policy conditions and is always ready to provide services as per warranty policy. On merits, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated, contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and invoice Ex.CW1/B.
6. On the other hand, op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Shajwani as Ex.R1, warranty card Ex.R2 and invoice Ex.R3.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. The complainant alleges defects in the mobile set in question within warranty period which was purchased by from op no.1 through online for a sum of Rs.66,749.05 including GST as per invoice dated 20.03.2021 Ex. CW1/B and mobile in question was delivered to the complainant at his residence in District Sirsa. But however, it is the specific plea of op no.3 that complainant has never registered any complaint about any defect in the mobile in question with any of its service centre. The complainant has also not placed on file any job card or any complaint number regarding registering any complaint with any of the ops. But however, as complainant is alleging defect in the mobile within warranty period, so it will be in the fitness of things, if a direction is issued to ops to get checked the mobile of complainant and to repair the same if same is having any defect and to make it defect free and to make refund of the lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant in case it is found that mobile in question is not repairable and the reason of deduction of remaining amount of Rs.16,749/- is that complainant has already used the mobile in question for six months.
9. In view of above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to inspect the mobile in question of complainant and to repair the mobile in question if same is having any defect and to make it defect free even by replacing any defective parts free of costs. The complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to op no.2 i.e. service centre of op no.3 against proper receipt within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter ops will do the needful within further period of 30 days and will return the mobile in question to the complainant after making it defect free. In case it is found that mobile is not repairable and is having any manufacturing defect, then op no.3 will make refund of the above said amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant against the cost of the mobile in question to the complainant within above said period of 30 days and op no.3 will retain the mobile in question. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, parties are left to bear their own costs. 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: 15.09.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
