Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/215/2022

Moksh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sumsung - Opp.Party(s)

Abhiksekh Lamba

28 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 215 of 2022

                  Date of Institution             : 07.10.2022

                                                           Date of Decision               : 28.05.2024

 

Moksh Kakkar  son of Sh. Sanjay Kakkar R/o H.No.2367, Sector-13, HUDA, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. Samsung Service Center,  B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Jain Mansion, HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001 through its Manager, authorized person.

 

2.  Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Head Office 20^th and 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Center, Gold Course Road, DLF Phase-V, Sector-43, Gurugram-122202 through its Manager, authorized person.

….. Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 2019.

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Abhishek Lamba, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP No.2.

                    OP No.1 exparte vide order dated 31.05.2023.

 

ORDER

 

Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased a mobile phone Samsung Z Flip Model SM-F700FZDDINU  in the name of Gopal Ji Non-Woven Fabrics on 17.02.2021 from Amazon in a sum of Rs.67,990/-.  The mobile phone was having some problem, so complainant approached OP No.1 on 05.08.2021 and the same was returned to complainant on 20.08.2021 and taken Rs.11,000/- from complainant, however, the defect of the screen of mobile phone was existing.  Complainant again visited OP No.1 on 25.08.2021 but it denied to repair the mobile phone within its warranty period rather demanded Rs.35,000/- for the same. So, legal notice dated 01.08.2022 was served upon the Ops but of no avail. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer has been made to issue directions to OPs to repair/refund the mobile phone in question free of costs. Further to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment besides Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, locus standi, suppression of material facts and non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted that complainant approached first time service center of OP on 05.08.2021 and reported LCD damage problem in his unit. On checking, it was found damaged. The mobile phone was out of warranty but the mobile phone was under one time screen replacement i.e. ADLD pack which is for discounted repair for once in a year of purchase and the unit of complainant has been repaired under ADLD pack and after the replacement of display and complainant took delivery of the mobile phone after being fully satisfied.  Again the same problem occurred on 25.08.2021 and it was told the complainant that the mobile phone is out of warranty and the repair would be on chargeable basis but complainant refused and sought for repair and replacement of the mobile phone. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                 Learned counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence.

5.                 On the other side, Ld. Counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.R1/A of Pawan Kumar, Engineer alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R10 and closed the evidence.

6.                 We have heard learned counsels for the contesting parties and perused record carefully.

7.                 From purchase bill (Ex. C-1), it is clear that complainant purchased the mobile phone in question in a sum of Rs.67,990/- on 17.02.2021. From job sheet dated 25.08.2021 (Ex. C-3) it reveals that the mobile phone occurred some problem within its warranty period. But the OPs denied its service alleging the mobile phone out of warranty. Perusal of warranty card (Ex. R-1) reveals that  the product was having warranty from 6 months to 36 months on various part description. Admittedly, the complainant raised first complaint on 05.08.2021, thus it was within six months from the date of purchase of the mobile set in question. Further, the OP has repaired the problem of the mobile but it again persists, therefore, the cause of action to the complainant was recurring. As such, the mobile phone was within warranty period.

8.                 After hearing learned counsels for the parties and going through the record, it is observed that the mobile phone occurred some defect(s) within its warranty period but it could not be rectified by the OPs rather demanded charges from him for the services.  It shows that the products was having some manufacturing defect in it. Thus the OP No.2 is deficient and negligent in provided proper service to the complainant as well as has adopted unfair trade practice.  Such act of OP amounts to deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss besides mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence, the complaint is allowed and OP No.2 is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To refund Rs.67,990/- (Rs.Sixty seven thousand nine hundred ninety) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization subject to return of the mobile phone in question by complainant.

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) to the complainant as compensation for harassment.

(iii)     To pay Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OP No.2 shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party no.2 may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.         

Announced.

Dated:28.05.2024.