IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 64/S/2016.                           DATED : 16.01.2018.   

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SMT. KRISHNA PODDAR,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &

  SRI TAPAN KUMAR BARMAN.

COMPLAINANT                       :  SREENIDHI PODDAR,

  C/o Late Subir Poddar, 

  24/6, Surya Sen Sarani, ‘B’ Block, P.O.- Siliguri Town,  

  Dist.- Jalpaiguri, Pin- 734 004.     

O.Ps.              1.                       : M/S MOBILE PALACE,

   Yadav Samity Building, Hill Cart Road, Siliguri,

  P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling.

  Phone No.0353-2530131, Mob-98320 67055.

                        2.                     : M/S GOODWILL ENTERPRISE,

                                                              Authorised Samsung Service Centre, Office No.7,

  Upper Ground Floor, International Market,

  Sevoke Road, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri,

  Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin- 734 001 (W.B.).

                                    3.                     : M/S SAMSUNG INDIA PVT. LTD.,

  57, S. F. Road, 3^rd Floor,

  P.O. – Siliguri Town, P.S.- Siliguri,

  Dist.- Darjeeling,  

  Pin- 734 004.  Phone : 91-353 2500656/657/2501696

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Santanu Chakraborty, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Smt. Krishna Poddar, Ld. President.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that the complainant purchased a cell phone being Samsung Galaxy Grand II on 16^th March, 2015 from the OP No.1 at a price of Rs.14,500/- only inclusive all taxes.  On February, 2016 the phone showed some mal-function and the battery was draining out even when the phone was not used and the body of the phone remained extremely hot throughout and there was problem of charging equipment.  The complainant on 27^th of February, 2016 visited the OP No.2 goodwill enterprise an authorised service centre of Samsung located at International Market, Siliguri and the technician of the OP No.2 checked the phone and told the complainant that the battery socket was

Contd.....P/2

-:2:-

damaged and claimed a sum of Rs.437/- as repairing cost.  The said phone was within the warranty period and as per rule the OP No.2 should not claim any repairing cost but the OP No.2 said that such damage is not covered by warranty terms and hence the repair is chargeable.  The complainant immediately rushed to the OP No.1 and asked for remedy but the OP No.1 did not response and behaved roughly with the complainant.  Complainant again rushed to the OP No.2 and handed over his phone to the OP No.2 for service purpose.  The complainant received his phone on 29^th February, in the evening at around 7 p.m. and after paying the bill when the complainant returned home and connected the charger with the phone the phone did not show any sign of charging and automatically got switched off for which he immediately called up the service centre but no one answered the calls.  On the next day he took the phone to the OP No.2 service centre again and OP No.2 checked the battery and blamed the complainant for mal function saying that it got carbon accumulated in the battery and it had nothing to do with their service.  The man of the OP No.2 used some solution to clean the battery head and placed the battery back into the phone and claimed that the phone was repair.  The Class Twelve (ISC) Board Examination of the complainant was going on so he requested the technician to give him proper remedy as he would not be able to visit them at short intervals in the recent future but OP No.2 did not pay any heed to it and gave the complainant false assurance and as a customer the complainant was not satisfied with their assurance and claimed refund of the charge and on hearing this the entire staff including the proprietor misbehaved with him and both OP Nos.1 & 2 put the entire blame on the complainant.  The complainant then called up the proprietor of the shop Mr. Tapan from where he purchased the phone for help but he did not take any initiation and politely refused.  After a few days (precisely 4^th March, 2016) complainant visited another authorised service centre located at Hakimpara, Siliguri named S. R. Electronics and gave them the phone in order to check the problem and they informed him that the technicians of Goodwill Enterprise have badly damaged his phone particularly the mother board while installing the battery socket and they said that to replace the mother board the complainant has to spend Rs.7,000/- and they gave the complainant a paper where the contact details of Samsung Customer Care was written and accordingly the complainant called up Samsung’s Customer Care toll free no.180030008282/18002668282 and they told that they have lodged a complaint in the name of the complainant and will take action within five business days but ultimately nothing was done.  Complainant then tried to mail from some number

Contd.....P/3

-:3:-

 of times through goggle mail which said the mail ID does not exist.  Thereafter on 18^th March, 2016 the Proprietor of OP No.1 called up his mother and extended hands for help and his mother trusted him and handed over the phone in absence of the complainant and then the proprietor of OP No.2 sent one of his men to the house of the complainant and handed over the phone and the Proprietor of OP No.2 Mr. Tapan assured that he will talk to Samsung and he assured that he had talk with the officials of OP No.3 and they agreed for replacement of the mother board but even after many days when the issue was not resolved the complainant collected the job sheet from Mr. Tapan and decided to collect the phone and then it was detected that the phone was submitted to SR Electronics.  Ultimately the handset was received from the SR Electronics by the complainant by singing some paper with an added note “issue not resolved” and complainant again tried to contact them at their customer care helpline but they did not response to the calls.  The complainant has been cheated by the OPs.  The cost of the phone was Rs.14,500/- and complainant had to visit the OPs a number of times for which he suffered monetary loss as well as harassment.

It has been asserted by the complainant that OP Nos.1 to 3 committed negligence while discharging their duties and obligations, resulting in loss of time, mental agony and financial loss of the complainant and as such the complainant has filed the instant case for refund of the price of the mobile phone amounting to Rs.14,500/- and compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for mental agony and financial loss and cost of the proceedings. 

OP No.1 received notice but did not turn up and OP No.2 although appeared before this Forum but ultimately failed to contest the case.  Accordingly, the case proceeds exparte against the OP Nos.1 & 2.

OP No.3 entered appearance and contested the case by filing a written version wherein the material averments made in the complaint have been denied and it has been contended inter-alia that the instant case is not maintainable.  It has been stated by the OP No.3 that the complainant purportedly purchased a Samsung Galaxy Grand II mobile phone on March 16, 2015 from OP No.1 for Rs.14,500/- manufactured by OP No.3 and during course of its use the complainant raised some purported grievances so as to the functioning of the said product complainant brought the handset to the service centre on 29^th February, 2016 and upon inspection of the said handset it transpired that the charging socket of the said handset was burnt and upon further inspection it transpired that there was liquid seepage inside the said socket.  The complainant tried to charge the said handset in such a condition as a result of which the charging

Contd.....P/4

-:4:-

socket burnt and the damage is not at all a manufacturing defect and the said damage was a physical damage caused due to the negligence of the complainant and as such the same is not covered by the warranty terms.  But the complainant failed to appreciate such fact and claimed for refund of the purchase price of the said handset which is not at all acceptable.  It has been further stated by the OP No.3 that the said handset was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant and after checking the said handset the same was handed over to the complainant.  It has been further stated by the OP No.3 that the service centres are authorised to deal with the products manufactured by the OP No.3 and repaired the alleged defective products of the OP No.3 and they are not the agent of the OP No.3 and as such any untoward act of the service centre is answerable as being they are sole responsibility and if a proper complaint would have been lodged the OP No.3 would have taken feasible steps against the service centre but when the handset was subject to physical damage caused due to the act of the complainant the said handset came out of the warranty coverage.  It has been contended by the OP No.3 that the complainant is not a consumer within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in as much as the alleged dispute is not a consumer dispute and there has been no deficiency of service/unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.3 and as such the case is liable to be dismissed with cost. 

To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents:-

1.       The Xerox copy of the purchase bill from the OP No.1 as Annexure-A.

2.       The Xerox copy of the approval form of the OP No.2 as Annexure-B.

3.       The Xerox copy of the net copy related to the case Annexure C.

Complainant has filed examination-in-chief.

Complainant has filed written notes of argument.

          OP No.3 has filed Written Notes of Argument.

Points for determination

1.       Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reason

          Both the issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

In order to substantiate her case, the complainant has submitted his examination-in-chief as PW No.1 and submitted the original tax invoice and the approval of Goodwill Enterprise. 

Contd.....P/5

-:5:-

On perusal of the tax invoice it appears that the complainant purchased the mobile phone being Samsung Galaxy Grand II on 16^th March, 2015 from OP No.1 at a price of Rs.14,500/- inclusive all taxes.  The complainant used the mobile phone till January, 2016 without any complaint.  According to complainant, on February, 2016 the phone showed some mal-function and the battery was draining out even when the phone was not used and the body of the phone remained extremely hot throughout and there was problem of charging equipment. The complainant on 27^th February, 2016 visited the OP No.2 Goodwill Enterprise, an authorised service centre of Samsung located at International Market, Siliguri and the technician of OP No.2 checked the phone and claimed a sum of Rs.437/- as repairing cost.  The complainant claimed that the said phone was given to OP No.2 within the warranty period for servicing the same and as such the OP No.2 should not claim any repairing cost.  But from the facts of the case as well as evidence of the complainant we find that there was problem of charging equipment and the battery was draining out even when the phone was not used which cannot be said any manufacturing defect of the mobile and as such the service centre claimed the servicing charge from the complainant.  The complainant further claimed that he gave the phone to the OP No.2 for servicing and on 29^th February, 2016 in the evening he received the phone from the OP No.2 after service and after paying the bill when he returned home and connected the charger with the phone, the phone did not show any sign of charging and automatically switched off.  The complainant on the next day took the phone to the OP No.2 and OP No.2 checked the battery and said that carbon accumulated in the battery and it had nothing to do with their service.  The complainant then informed the matter to OP No.1 but the proprietor of OP No.1 misbehaved with him and both the OP Nos.1 & 2 put the entire blame on the complainant.  The complainant then visited another authorised service centre located at Hakimpara, Siliguri named ‘SR Enterprise’ and gave the phone in order to check the problem and the SR Electronics informed him that the technicians of Goodwill Enterprise had badly damaged his phone particularly the mother board while installing the battery socket and further said that to replace the mother board the complainant has to spend Rs.7,000/- but in this regard the complainant has not filed any document of SR Enterprise.  Complainant failed to check the problem of his mobile phone by any expert to ascertain actually what was the defect there for which he is not in a position to operate the phone?  Without having any expert evidence it cannot be held that there was any manufacturing defect of a mobile phone.  So, at this stage complainant’s claim for refund of the entire purchase money of the mobile phone cannot be accepted.

Contd.....P/6

-:6:-

From the facts and circumstances of the present case with regard to the materials and evidence of the parties on record we do not find any materials to hold whether there was any manufacturing defect of the phone in question or whether the phone was not working due to mishandling of the same or any physical damage of the phone.  So, at this stage this Forum is not in a position to accept the claim of the complainant.  In fact, the complainant has failed to prove his case by adducing sufficient cogent evidence.  According, he is not entitled to get relief as prayed for. 

In the result, the case fails.    

Hence, it is

                           O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.64/S/2016 is dismissed on contest without cost against the OP No.3 and dismissed exparte against the OP Nos.1 & 2 but without cost.

Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.