PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.-177/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Abhinas Nanda,

S/O-Rajendra Kumar Nanda,

R/O-Jagannath Mandir Colony, PO-Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali,

Dist-Sambalpur-768004, Odisha.

Mob-8249409746                                                          ….…......Complainant.

                                    -Vrs.-  

1. Popular Mobile,

Infront of L.I.C. of India Building, Po-Budharaja,

Ps-Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur-768004, Odisha

GSTIN/UIN-21BFHPM0262D1Z3,

Mob-9658798331.

2. Samsung Care center

Infront of Budharaja Petrol Pump, Po-Budharaja, PS-Ainthapali

Dist-Sambalpur-768004,Odisha,

Mob-934824109,

3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

6^th floor, DLF Centre Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110001, India                                     .…………........Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. S.S.Sarangi & Associates
2. For the O.P. No.1                           :- Sri. A.K. Dash & Associates
3. For the O.P. No.2                           :- Ex-parte
4. For the O.P. No.3                           :- Sri. S.K. Mohanty & Associates

Date of Filing:16.10.2023,  Date of Hearing :08.04.2024  Date of Judgement : 13.05.2024

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased one mobile set of SAMSUNG FOLD 4 12/256 and a SAMSUNG 25W ADOPTER on payment of Rs. 1, 34,001/- on 30.09.2022 from the OP No. 1. After receipt of the mobile, the Complainant used the mobile smoothly with proper care by following instructions of the OP No. 1. During such use, on 07.07.2023 the Complainant noticed that the display of the mobile phone was not functioning. Therefore, he took the mobile phone and produced before the OP No. 1 who after inspection assured to repair the same within 2 to 3 days as the defective set was within the warranty period. Accordingly the Complainant proceeded to the OP No. 1 to collect his mobile as per assurance given but instead of repair, the OP No. 1 returned the mobile assigning no reason of its defect by saying that the OP No. 2 has returned the mobile. Since it was within the period of warranty, the Complainant claimed to refund the sale price or supply him a similar mobile free from defects but the OP No. 1 refused to pay any amount or supply a similar mobile to the Complainant by violating consumer rights of the Complainant. In this regards, the Complainant served one pleader Notice to the OPs on 14.07.2023 but the OP remained silent. Thereafter the Complainant approached several times to OP No. 2 for repair of the mobile who kept the same for repairing. On 09.10.2023 during visit of the Complainant to the OP No. 2, when the Complainant told that he is all set to take shelter of court of law for delay in repairing, the OP No. 2 suddenly got enraged and in a loud voice replied that Court will not entertain your case as the same doesn’t cover warranty period and you are bound to pay the repair charges if you want to repair further saying that do whatever you wish to do and returned the defective mobile to the Complainant. The above conduct of the OPs proof itself that they are in connivance with one another by way of selling a defective mobile set to the Complainant by adopting unfair trade practices and thereby put the Complainant in financial loss, mental agony along with other botherations.
2. The OP No.1 & 2 not submitted their version.
3. The Version of OP No. 3 is that all the Mobile phones SAMSUNG makes are provided with one year manufacturer’s warranty and the OP assures to render free services during the warranty in force by replacing minor parts and never assures replacement of the entire product. The status of the warranty became void in case it was detected that the alleged mobile phone sustained physical damage. On 07.07.2023 a claim for service is lodged alleging the detection of black lines on the display and hinge broken after using the mobile for 9 months and 7 days of usage and the same is registered and attended through the Authorized Services Center.  On inspection physical damage was detected in the mobile and the fact was updated to the Complainant. Authorized Service Center also preferred to take assistance from the SAMSUNG technical team through Visual Support and on getting confirmation offered paid services to the Complainant. Technical Analysis reports with photographs procured during such analysis are relied upon in reply. Though the period of incident took place during the warranty period, the warranty became void due to physical damage caused due to misuse pf the product. This being a case of physical damage caused to the handset, an estimate for service was provided to the consumer but he denied availing of paid services and preferred to return back the handset without repair. So this is not a case of deficiency in service, or adoption of unfair trade practice by the OP No. 3.
4. From the Submission and evidences, it is found that the Complainant purchased the handset from the OP NO. 1 is a defective one and the OPs did not take step to repair the mobile. The OP NO.2 is the authorised service center and the OP NO. 1 is the dealer. So they have no deficiency. In the other hand, the OP No. 3 took a common plea of physical damage of the Mobile set but the OP No. 3 has not given evidence including technician report which proved about the physical damage of the Mobile set. Further the photographs submitted by the OPs is the actual LED TV of the Complainant or not, it is not cleared. As the problem was arose within the warranty period and being manufacturer, the OP No. 3 has not solved the problem of the Mobile Set, the O.P. No. 3 deficient in service and unfair trade practice . Hence the O.P No. 3 is liable for compensation. 

Accordingly it is ordered that the Complaint Petition filed by the Complainant is allowed on merit. The O.P No. 3 is directed to refund Rs. 1,34,001/- toward price of the Mobile Phone to the Complainant and take back the old Mobile Phone from the Complainant. Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental and physical agony, financial loss, harassment and deficiency in service to the Complainant and Rs. 15,000/- towards litigation expenses within 30 days from the date of this Order failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 13^th day of May, 2024.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.