Delhi

East Delhi

CC/748/2013

Rohit Kumar Kansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Mobile Store - Opp.Party(s)

13 Sep 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC No. 748/ 2013:

In the matter of:

Sh. Rohit Kumar Kansal

R/o. Flat No.326, Sector – 18 B,

Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 075

Complainant

Vs

1.         The Mobile Store Ltd.

            (Through its Proprietor)

                      D – A, 4/A, Main Vikas Marg,

                      Opp. Nathu Sweets, Delhi – 110 092

         

          2.         The Managing Director

                      Samsung India

                      Office At:

                      2^nd Floor, Tower – C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector – 43,

                      Golf Course Road,

                      Gurgaon, Haryana

 

          3.         Shipra Midha Sareen

                      Representative of Samsung Customer Satisfaction,

                      Office At:

                      2^nd Floor, Tower – C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector – 43,

                      Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana

 

          4.         Sh. Ajeet Kumar

                      Representative of Samsung Customer Satisfaction,

                      Office At:

                      2^nd Floor, Tower – C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector – 43,

                      Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana

 

          5.         Manager (Service Centre)

                      Cell Net

                      Office At:

                      L – 1, Mahavir Enclave, Palam Dabri Road,

                      New Delhi – 110 045

Respondents

 

Date of Admission : 10/09/2013

                                                                                    Date of Order          : 27/05/2015

 

ORDER

 

Ms.Poonam Malhotra, Member:

 

 

            This complaint has been filed with the allegation that on 10/03/2013 the complainant purchased a new Samsung Galaxy Grand Mobile Phone handset Model No. GT – 19082EWAINS Serial No.RZ1D30DC56A, IMEI No.355886050516049 for a sum of Rs.20,900/- from Respondent No.I.  The handset was carrying a warranty of one year. On day two of its purchase the phone was not working properly and on the advice of the Customer Care the complainant visited the Respondent No.IV, the Authorised Service Centre on 20/03/2013 where the technical staff after checking the handset informed him that there was a problem in the Motherboard of the handset and that they have repaired the same and it is working properly but when the complaint was escalated to the CEO Support Team on 22/03/2013 the Respondent accepted that they had only upgraded the software of the handset and its engineer had wrongly communicated to the complainant that the motherboard of the handset has been replaced.   The complainant alleges to have accepted the repaired phone with an oral assurance from it that in future if there was any problem in the handset it would be replaced.  In May, 2013 the handset developed the problems of heating, hanging, data unsaved, etc.  The complainant raised the issue with the Service Centre on phone on 31/05/2013 and thereafter on their advice submitted the phone at the Authorized Service Centre.  The respondent offered an extension of warranty by two months to compensate for the period the phone was lying at the Service Centre.  In reply to the e-mails dated 10/06/2013 and 12/06/2013 of the complainant, the respondent assured service support and already offered extension of warranty on the said Mobile Phone and also assured him that post repairs quality and value of the device would remain intact.  The complainant consented to the replacement of the motherboard and submitted the same to Respondent No.V against Work Order No.20276 dated 05/07/2013.   Regular follow-up and legal notice dated 22/07/2013 to the respondents were of no consequence.   It is in these circumstances, the complainant has prayed for the refund of Rs.20,900/-, the cost of the  handset, compensation with interest @18% p.a. damages and cost of litigation. 

            In reply to the notices issued to the respondents written statement filed by Respondent No.II to V wherein while admitting the facts of purchase of the handset from Respondent No.I and the 12 months warranty on the handset, it has denied all the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint.  It has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint as the same has been filed by concealment of the facts and for want of cause of action against the answering respondents.  It is further contended that it is not liable to pay the cost of the handset or give a new handset in replacement if the same is lost by the Service Centre.  It has also raised the pleas of territorial jurisdiction.  It is also contended that the performance of the handset had degraded as the complainant had downloaded/ installed third party /pirated/illegal softwares.  The Respondent No.V had resolved the issue by upgrading the software.  It is submitted that the complainant did not contact the answering respondents in May, 2013 and it is only on 20/06/2013 that he contacted the Respondent No.V with problems of heating and hanging of the handset but after examination of the handset no problem was found in it.  Despite this, the complainant insisted upon replacement of the handset.  It is further submitted that only due to the insistence of the complainant that the Respondent No.V got ready to replace the motherboard of the said handset.  Again on 05/07/2013 the complainant complained of heating and hanging in the said handset and after examining the said handset it was identified that there was some minor defect in the power key due to extra pressure on the power key resulting from mishandling of the handset by the complainant.  The key was replaced and the problem was redressed.  The complainant has failed to prove that the handset was suffering from any manufacturing defect and the answering respondents were not deficient in providing services to him.  Rest of the allegations have been denied.

            Rejoinder to the Written Statement of Respondent Nos. II to V not filed by the complainant.  Only Evidence by way of Affidavit filed by the complainant in support of his case.

            Heard the complainant & the Ld. Cl. for Respondent Nos.II to V and perused the record.

The fact of purchase of a Samsung Galaxy Grand Mobile Handset Model No. GT–19082EWAINS with IMEI No.355886050516049 Serial No.RZ1D30DC56A from Respondent No.I vide Invoice No.12051/8610725 dated 10/03/2013 for Rs.20,900/-  carrying a warranty of one year is not in dispute.  In the case in hand, the complainant had submitted the handset for repairs to Respondent No.V on 06/06/2013 for the rectification of heating and hanging problems and on 05/07/2013 for the rectification of defects namely heating, hanging, slow processing, keys not working, dent on body, etc. as is evident from the Work Orders of the respective dates filed on record as Paper 17 and 16 respectively annexed with the complaint.  It is also evident from the copy of the Service Request dated 06/06/2013 filed on record as Paper 18 to the present complaint that the PBA of the handset was replaced and it was rendered OK.  On an indepth perusal of the e-mail threads, it is evident from the e-mail dated 31/05/2013 that the handset was submitted by the complainant at the Authorised Service Centre of Samsung at Najafgarh for hanging problem.  Not an iota of evidence has been filed on record by the Respondent Nos.II to V to show that the software of the handset was upgraded or it was formatted and softwares were reinstalled as contended by it.   It is evident from the record that the handset was submitted for repairs on 06/06/2013, the Motherboard of the handset (PBA) was replaced by Respondent No.V and it was returned to the complainant on 18/06/2013.  The respondent has not filed on record any cogent documentary evidence to show that the Motherboard of the handset was replaced by it only on the request of the complainant simply to satisfy him and to maintain healthy relations with its customers and not for the rectification of the reported defects.  Further, the fact that the handset was again submitted on 05/07/2013 to the Respondent No.V with problems of heating, hanging, slow processing, keys not working, etc. leaves no room for doubt that despite changing the motherboard of the handset in question it was suffering from defects which were beyond repairs.

Further, with regard to the contention of the respondents that the handset in question had been rendered defect free post repairs and while it was kept under observation since 05/07/2013, as is mentioned in the e-mail dated 16/07/2013 sent by Respondent No.III to the complainant, no problem had recreated in it the respondents have not filed on record any report certifying this fact that after keeping the handset under observation it was functioning properly.  In the absence of any such report it is hard to believe the contention of the respondents and the same is, thus, not tenable. 

The respondents have not placed on record any credible evidence to confirm its submission that it had replaced the power key of the handset in question to resolve the problem of the complainant.

The respondent has challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum on the ground as the complainant does not reside within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and Respondent Nos. II to V reside in Gurgaon, Haryana. In the present complaint the complainant had purchased the handset in question from Respondent No.I in Delhi and he had deposited the handset with Respondent No.V at its Delhi Office against Work Order No.20276 dated 05/07/2013.  Thus, in the case in hand the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. Since the Union Territory of the Delhi has been held to be one District and a complaint can be filed in any of the Forums when cause of action has arisen in Delhi there is no illegality in entertaining the present complaint.  The contention raised by the respondent is, thus, not tenable.

Complainant has failed to make out any case against the Respondent No.I.  As such it is exonerated from any liability towards the complainant.

Taking into consideration the discussion and observations made supra, we are of the view that the respondents were deficient in providing services to the complainant.  We direct the respondents to pay to the complainant in all Rs.30,000/- and this amount shall include the refund of the cost of the handset, the compensation for harassment meted out to him and the cost of this litigation.  The complainant shall hand over the the original job-sheet, against which it last submitted the handset to the Authorized Service Centre of the respondent for rectification of alleged defects, and the accessories of the old handset to the respondents at the time of receiving the amount so awarded to him.   

Let this amount also be paid within 45 days from the date of this order. 

Copy of the order to be sent to all the parties as per rules.

 

(Poonam Malhotra)                                                                                              (N.A.Zaidi)           Member                                                                                                       President