Date of Filing:27-11-2018
Date of Order: 21 -08-2020
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
Friday, the 21st day of August, 2020
C.C.No.456 /2018
Between
Mohammed Wasi, S/o. Mohammed Shafi,
Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.20-4-194/7/15/3, Shalibanda, Hyderabad – 500065 ……Complainant
And
- M/s. Bajaj Electronics
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory
Abids, Hyderabad – 500046
- M/s. Samsung Service Centre
Rep. by its Authorized signatory
4-1-327 to 335, 1st floor,
Sagr Plaza, Hyderabad – 500001 ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : M.A.Madhumathi
Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 : M/s. Santosh Singh
Opposite party No.2 : Mr. Bhasker Poluri
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act 1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties
- The complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased a smart mobile phone from opposite party No.1 shop by using the credit card of his cousin Mr. Shaik Mazher. Soon after the purchase the touch screen of handset started giving problem and did not function properly. When he approached opposite party No.1 he was advised to contact opposite party No.2 the authorized service provider of the product and accordingly complainant went to opposite party No.2 on 16-7-2018 and delivered the handset reporting the problem of the touch screen. The opposite party No.2 after examining the product agreed to render the necessary service and later delivered back the handset to the complainant stating that the complaint was attended. Believing it complainant went back but noticed the problem of touch screen is persisting. Hence again visited the opposite party No.2 several occasions and finally on 22-10-2018 handed over the handset to opposite party No.2 and after collecting it opposite party No.2 promised to detect the problem. Later opposite party No.2 informed the complainant that there are some technical problem and it has to be rectified only on payment of the cost but the complainant refused to pay any amount since the product is still under warranty. But opposite party No.2refused to attend the problem without payment. The efforts of the complainant with the opposite parties to attend the problem of the hand set were resulted in vain. Since the product is under warranty complainant was not inclined to pay any amount and left with no alternative constrained to file the present complaint.
- Opposite party No.1 while admitting the sale of subject handset to the complainant on 23-5-2018 for a total sum of Rs.22,400/- denied the any liability to attend repairs to the product.
The stand of the opposite party No.1 is that it is only a dealer/retailer of the Samsung products and it cannot be held liable for any manufacturing defect of the product. If the complainant has got any grievance to the product he should approach authorized service centre and the manufacturer. That apart as per the invoice the handset was purchased by one Mr. Shaik Mazhar but not the complainant, hence the complainant is not a proper party to file the present complaint alleging unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. There is a clear mention in the invoice that goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged under any circumstances Articles sold is /are guaranteed by manufacturers only. Hence the opposite party No.1 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present complaint. Purchaser of the product has to approach the authorized service centre and the manufacturer and not the dealer from whom the product is purchased as such no relief can be granted to the complainant against opposite party No.1.
- The stand of opposite party No.2 in the written version is that it only attends to the service and repairs of the mobile phones manufactured and sold by M/s. Samsung Electronics India Pvt. Limited. The product is not manufactured or sold by opposite party No.2, the liability of the opposite party No.2 is only of attend the service free of cost during the warranty period and after the warrantee to attend the service on chargeable base. Opposite party No.2 received the handset from the complainant informing that there is a problem of touch screen and the said problem was attended by opposite party No.2 free of cost on 16-7-2018 without any delay. But the complainant again came up on 22-10-2018 with another complaint of touch screen. When opposite party No.2 examined the product noticed that it was water logged due to which the problem of malfunctioning of touch screen has occurred. As per Clause No.4 of the warranty, warranty shall be void under certain conditions which includes water logging, misuse etc. Since the product brought by the complainant for second time on 22-10-2018 was on account of water logging it cannot be repaired free of cost and same was communicated to the complainant and he was given an estimation to carry out the repair but the complainant wanted the product to be repaired at free of cost which was not possible for opposite party No.2 as the product was out of warranty, then the complainant took away the product without repairs to it.
Opposite party No.2 is not liable for any manufacturing defect of the product as it is not a manufacturer as it is authorized service provider. The complaint of the complainant was attended twice without any loss of time. There was no manufacturing defect to the handset brought by the complainant. The problem in the product is on account of water logging and it is out of warranty for attending repairs. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.2 hence no relief can be granted against it in the present complaint and same is liable to be dismissed.
In the enquiry the complainant got filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complaint and to support the same he has got exhibited three (3) documents. For Opposite Party No.1 the evidence affidavit of its authorized signatory cum Director is got filed and substance of the same is in tune with the stand taken in the written version filed for it. Similarly for opposite party No.2 evidence affidavit of its authorized signatory is got filed and substance of the same is in line with the stand taken in the written version filed for it. Three (3) documents are exhibited for the opposite parties. Both sides have filed written arguments and made oral submissions.
On a consideration of material brought on the record the following points have emerged for consideration.
- Whether the complainant can maintain the present complaint and alleging deficiency of service or unfair trade practice ?
- Whether the complainant made out a case of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice against the opposite parties ?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: The opposite party No.1in the written version itself has taken a plea that as per the invoice bill the complainant is not the purchaser of the product and he cannot maintain the present complaint. Though the complainant in the complaint had made a mention of the fact that he purchased the subject product by using the credit card of his cousin Mr.Shaik Mazher he cannot claim that he is the purchaser of the product and as per the invoice Mr.Shaik Mazher is the purchaser of the product and purchaser of the product can only allege unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party by not for the user. It is seen from the Ex.B2 and B3 which are acknowledgment’s of service request, the subject product was delivered by the complainant to opposite party No.2 for attending repairs. So these documents evidences that complainant is only user of the product and purchaser of it as per Ex.A1 invoice is Mr.Shaik Mazher and the Consumer Protection Act does not contemplate that the user of the product can also file the complaint against the dealer service provider or manufacturer of the product alleging either deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. Since the complainant is not a purchaser of the product as per Ex.A1 Invoice filed by the complainant himself, he cannot maintain the present complaint. Accordingly point is answered.
Point No.2 : Now it is to be seen by considering that the complainant is purchaser of the product he made out of a case of unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It is evident from Ex.B3 acknowledgment of service request that the complainant took the subject product to the opposite party No.2 service centre on 17-7-2018 by which date product was under warranty. The complainant reported on that date touch screen was not working. Opposite party No.2 attended the complaint on the same day and delivered back the product to the complainant. As per the Ex.B2 another acknowledgment of service request the complainant again took the same product to opposite party No.2 service centre with a complaint that touch screen was not working properly. The opposite party No.2 examined the product in the presence of the complainant and noticed that liquid logged and informed the complainant that since the product was mis-handled, it is not covered under warranty . So it is evident from the Ex.B2 acknowledgement service request that when the complainant took the product to opposite party No.2 service centre on second time i.e 22-10-2018 water logged in product which was not there earlier when the complainant took the same product to opposite party No.2 service centre on 17-7-2018 and it was with the complainant for three months during which period the issue of water logging in product happened. So this was mishandling of product hence the opposite party No.2 rightly rejected to attend the product free of cost. So the documentary evidence placed on record has clinchingly proved that the complainant mishandled the product and allowed the water to log. Hence he cannot allege that there is a manufacturing defect or deficiency of service as they have failed to repair the product though the product is under warranty. Accordingly point is answered against the complainant.
Point No.3: In view of the above findings it is to follow that the complainant is not entitled for relief as prayed in the complaint and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 21st day of August , 2020.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
For complainant
Mr. Mohammed Wasi (PW1)
For opposite parties
Mr. Karan Bajaj (DW1)
Mr. J.Anil Kumar (DW2)
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1- copy of the invoice dt.23/5/2018
Ex.A2- copy of the service request dt.16-7-2018
Ex.A3- copy of the service request dt.22-10-2018
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Ex.B1-Printed warranty booklet
Ex.B2- Acknowledgment of service request dt.4-12-2018
Ex.B3- Acknowledgment of service request dt.4-12-2018
MEMBER PRESIDENT
