BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

C.C NO-10/2018

Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy, Member (W).

Sunil Kumar Agrawal, aged about 46 years,

S/O-Laxminarayan Agrawal,

R/O, C/O-Jadumani Patra,

P.O-Rairakhol, Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha.                                                 …..Complainant

Vrs.

1. M/S Samsung India Pvt. Ltd,

Tower C, Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road,

Sector-43, Gurgaon, India.

2. M/S Dibyanshi ,

Authorised Service Centre,

In front of Budharaja Petrol Pump,

P.O- Budharaja, Dist-Sambalpur-768004.

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant:-  Sri Dushmanta Behera, Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P-1      :-         Sri S.K.Mohanty, Advocate & Associates.
3. For the O.P-2      :-         None

DATE OF HEARING : 22.02.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 24.02.2021

Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President:-        Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant on dtd 27.08.2017 has purchased a Cell phone of Samsung make of model A-730GZKWINS from a retailer name Khusi Mobile  on payment of Rs.20,900/- vide Invoice No-1221, serial No-RZ8J80VKMWR and IMEI No- 358674/08/207929/4 having one year manufacturer warranty. On dtd. 16.10.2017 the display screen of the said cell phone was turned blackish with overheating.  The Complainant visited to the O.P-2 who is the Authorised Service Centre in this case with the retail invoice and warranty card but the O.P-2 denied providing any service free of cost though it was in warranty period. But finding no alternative the Complainant submitted the mobile for repairing with the O.P-2. The O.P-2 issued a Tax Invoice of Rs.4,614 towards the replacement of defective parts and service charges to the complainant and it was paid accordingly. The Complainant alleged that taking of service charges and replacement of defective parts during warranty is gross negligence and amounts to unfair trade practice by the O.P-2.

 But the O.P-1 clarifies that the Dealer must be a party to this case as he has directly sold the cell phone to the Complainant and issue sale invoice. Again the O.P-1 denies that the cell phone was having some manufacturing defect as it was not accompanied with any export opinion report. The O.P-1 claims that the handset should have been deposited with the Authorised Service Centre or with the Forum since the day of filling of this Consumer Complaint. As the Complainant has failed to do so it can be presumed that the Complainant is using the same as it is in good condition. He also cited two case laws/decisions from National Commission Delhi –“Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vrs. B.G Thakudesai & Anr”. reported at 1985-86 Consumer 362(NS) and “M/S Tata engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd & Anr. Vrs. M. Moosa” reported at 1985-86 Consumer 1367(NS) in support to his defence. As the O.P-1 is doing business with the dealer in principal to principal basis he has no direct relation with the Complainant and has a little role on the product quality and warranty benefits of the mobile handset in questions. The company undertakes to repair and remove the defect free of cost within one year from the date of purchase but the warranty does not cover the alleged defect. The O.P-1 also alleges that the Complainant has not lodged any complain with him earlier or never called in the Toll Free number regarding the malfunction of the mobile Handset hence he has no information regarding the defect in the mobile phone.  He again placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Stereocraft Vrs. Monotype India Ltd. New Delhi(2000),NCJ(SC)(59)” where it has been cleared that when terms of warranty does not cover refund or replacement then the consumer cannot claim either replacement or refund during or after the warranty period. The O.P-1 claims to be a leading manufacturer of various electronic and household products  supported by the service centres having excellent set up for after sale services of its products, which are manned by qualified and experienced personnel only and provides services through a large network of Authorised Service Stations. Every procedure for services/repairs is standardized and procedures are laid down for the service centres for carrying out necessary services/repairs/replacements. Hence the O.P-1 has not committed any deficiency in service to the Complainant hence the petition is deserves to dismissed with cost.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased a Cell phone of Samsung make of model A-730GZKWINS from a retailer name Khusi Mobile  on payment of Rs.20,900/-. When the said mobile handset became defective only after two months of purchase, the O.P-2 being the authorised service station denied the complainant to repair the said Mobile handset in spite of it was within the manufacturer warranty and taken charges for repairing and replacement of defective parts.

Again it is the duty of the service personnel (O.P-2) to issue expert opinion report to the Complainant. Here the negligence and carelessness of the O.P-2 towards their customers is clearly understood which amounts to deficiency in service.  Again as per the statements made in the written statements the O.P-1 being a reputed Company for household products he is well supported by the Service centres to provide after sale services to the customers, which manned by qualified and experienced personnel through a large network of Authorised Service Centres. So the O.P-1 is held responsible and answerable for every negligence, discrepancies, deviations or irregularities by the O.P-2. Hence in the present case both the O,P-1 & 2 are responsible for Committing  “Deficiency in Service” to the Complainant U/S 2(a) of Consumer Protection Act-2019.  The case is well settled in the matter of M/S Samsung India Electronic  Vs. Sambhaji Ramji Patil Umrekar, on 26^th  November, 2013 decided by “State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Maharastra (CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD)”. Hence we order as under:-

ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P-1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund the charges received towards repair and replacement of defective parts amounting to Rs. 4,614/- to the Complainant  with 9% interest till the date of actual realization of amount. The O.P-1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) towards the cost of litigation. All the orders are to be carried out within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.

Order pronounced in the open Court today i.e, on 24^th day of February 2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

I agree,

-sd/-(24.02.2021)                                                                                                       -sd/-(24.02.2021)

        Smt. S.Tripathy                                                                                                         Sri. D.K. Mahapatra

        MEMBER.(W)                                                                             PRESIDENT

                                                                                   Dictated and Corrected

                                                                             by me.

                                                                        -sd/-(24.02.2021)

                                                                     Sri. D.K. Mahapatra

                                                                        PRESIDENT