PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.- 61/2021

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Kishor Chandra Majhi, aged about 50 years

S/o- Mukunda Majhi, Occupation-Advocate

R/o- Dhankauda, PO-Dhankauda, Ps-Sadar

Dist-Sambalpur-768006                                                          ...………..Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.,

DLF Building, Sansad Marg, Janpath,

Connaught Palace, New Delhi-110001                            

2. Reliance Retail Limited, Reliance Digital

First & Second Floor, Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur

3. Samsung Service Center, Sambalpur,

Infront of Petrol Pump, Budharaja,

PO-Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur     …………...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :-       Sri. N.K.Panda, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P. No.1               :-       Sri. S.K.Mohanty, Advocate & Associates
3. For the O.P. No. 2              :-       Sri. P.Pattnaik, Advocate & Associates
4. For the O.P. No.3               :-       Mamita Guru, Authorised Representative

Date of Filing:06.11.2021,     Date of Hearing :15.05.2023,     Date of Judgement : 05.06.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has purchased a mobile handset of the OP NO. 1 manufacturing company from the OP No. 2 on dtd. 09.11.2020 for Rs. 5999/- for personal use. After two months  in January, 2021 problem of mobile started and network was missing in the handset. Thereafter the Complainant as per advise of the OP No. 2, went to the OP No. 3 on dtd. 15.01.2021 with network problem issue and after verifying the handset, the technician of the OP No. 3 updated new software in the mobile, but refused to provide service paper of the repairing of the mobile. Again on 13.02.2021 and 13.04.2021 for the same network problem issue of the mobile, the Complainant went to the OP No. 3 and again the technician of OP No. 3 updated new software on the mobile, but refused to provide service paper of the repairing of the mobile in spite of request of the Complainant. Thereafter in the month of June, 2021, August, 2021 and lastly in the month of October, 2021, the Complainant visited the OP No. 2 & 3 for redressal of his problem, but they provided the same temporary solution and not a permanent one. Even after a period of eleven months passed, the problem of the Complainant has not been solved and he is deprived of using his phone smoothly. The Complainant chooses the brand value of the OP No. 1 with a hope that he will not be cheated with his hard earned money. The OP No. 2 has supplied a defective mobile set to the Complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice by the OP No. 2. So it is a clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and for which they shall be held responsible.  Further in his written argument on dtd. 23.05.2023, the Complainant submitted that the Complainant is residing in Sambalpur Municipal Corporation area and his house is located adjacent to the heart of the Sambalpur town and also one mobile tower is located adjacent to the house. So there is no chance of any tower problem or network problem. The Complainant after much difficulties getting the address of the OP NO. 1 and on 25.10.2021 sent a letter to the OP No. 1 for replacement of his defective mobile handset but the OP NO.1 did not reply to the letter of the Complainant. The OP NO. 2 is branded retail show room for electronic goods, for which the Complainant choose to purchase the mobile from him. The Complainant approached the OP No. 2 for the problem of the mobile set and requested the OP NO. 2 to give detail of OP NO.1 i.e phone number, contact number and complain lodge number to lodge complain for replacement of mobile but the OP NO. 2 refused to provide the correct address and phone number of the OP NO. 1  and directed the Complainant to go to the OP NO. 3 for mobile handset problem . The OP No. 3 is the service centre of the OP No. 1 to provide effective service to the consumer. The Complainant went to the OP NO. 3 several times for repairing of the mobile but the OP No. 3 each and every time updating the mobile software and could not able to repair the defective mobile permanently and falsly assuring the Complainant that henceforth mobile problem will not arise in the mobile. But the mobile of the Complainant still not functioning properly and frequently having the same old problem till now thereby the Complainant is deprived of using his mobile properly for the fault and negligence of the OP NO. 3. Again the Complainant had gone to the OP NO. 3 on 09.12.2022 on his request and as per direction of this Hon’ble Commission in National Lok Adalat with the mobile, therein the OP NO. 3 simply check the mobile and returned to the Complainant within 20 minutes without issuing any job card or message to the Complainant. There after the OP NO. 3 falsely filed a report before the Hon’ble Commission that they have handed over the mobile on 16.12.2022 to the Complainant and falsely certified that there is no problem in the mobile of the Complainant. The OP NO. 3 has also filed the job card directly before the Commission without obtaining any signature from the Complainant which shows the unfair activity of the OP No. 3. The OP NO. 3 would not able to perfectly repair the mobile for the Complainant and could not provide permanent solution to the problem of the mobile because the OP No. 3 have no expert technician and he did not inform the OP NO. 1 about the problem of the mobile. In the premises the OP No. 3 is negligent in his duty to provide proper service to the Complainant. In the premises stated above it is a clear cut case of negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the OP NO. 1, 2 and 3 for which they shall all separately held responsible for unfair trade practice.

2. The Written Version of the OP No. 1 is that the signal strength of the mobile wholly depends on the frequency of the locality’s telecom and internet service providers and the distance from the telephone tower. The signal strength is sometimes reduced in remote locations. Apart from that Software up-gradation is not a service required for removing defects in mobile. Android devices can receive and install over-system and application software updates. Android notifies the device user that a system update is available and the device user can install the update immediately or later according to the sweet will of the user, software updates are important as in addition to security fixes, software updates can also include new or enhanced features or better compatibility with devices or applications of the mobile phone. These services are mostly provided free of cost and software up-gradation is not a defect to be removed from the mobile phone. It is only required to enhance the performance of the android phone. In order to maintain the true spirit of Lok Adalat, this Hon’ble Commission pleases to ascertain the actual status of the mobile with regard to the allegation and apprehension of the existence of a manufacturing defect in the mobile phone by the Complainant and directed the OP to conduct an extensive test of the mobile through the Authorised Service Center and submit its report before this Hon’ble Commission at Pre Lok Adalat. In pursuance to the direction of this Hon’ble Commission, the IQC test was conducted by the technical persons of the authorized service center, and the finding report was submitted before this Hon’ble Commission on 16.12.2022. The report establishes the mobile is working perfectly as per the manufacturer’s standard and there is no defect detected or existing in the mobile. Under such circumstances, the apprehension of the existence of manufacturing defects in the mobile is not correct and the complaint deserves dismissal on merits.

The Version of the OP NO. 2 is that the OP No. 2 carries on the business besides other engages in the sale of Mobile handsets of different manufacturing companies and M/S Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. is one among them. To the best of information available in the Store, the Complainant approached for rectification of defect in his Mobile handsets for which the customer was advised by the store personal to approach the Authorized Service Center of the Manufacturer of the Mobile Set, i.e OP No. 3, as the Mobile set was within the period of Manufacturer’s /brand samsung’S op No. 1’s warranty and the OP No. 2 is not authorized to provide after sale service or repair within the period of Manufacturer’s/brand SAMSUNG’s OP No. 1’s warranty. The repair work was done by the OP No. 3 of which the OP No. 1 is no way connected. As the Mobile handset was within the period of warranty provided by Manufacturer/Brand , i. e OP No. 1, the OP No. 2 is not authorized to provide the repairing service of the product within the same period. Thus the OP No. 2 advised the Complainant to avail the service from the Authorized Service Center of Sambalpur i. e OP No. 3. The OP No. 2 has not committed any cheating or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice towards the Complainant.

The Version of the OP NO. 3 is that in pursuance to the direction given by this Hon’ble Commission on pre-settlement Lok Adalat, the mobile phone was submitted before the service center on 09.12.2022 and duly registered as a complaint vide Job No. 4361803824, dtd. 16.12.2022. The mobile phone was thoroughly examined by the technical team and confirmed the same is free from any kind of manufacturing defect and is performing perfectly. Under such facts and circumstances, the OP No. 3 is not ready and willing to settle the dispute at Lok Adalat.

3. From the above it is found that the Mobile set purchased by the Complainant was a defective product i.e. inherent manufacturing defect from immediately after two months from the date of purchase and visited to the authorized service center i.e OP No. 3 by the Complainant, the OP NO.3 could not solve the problem and not take necessary step for repair the Mobile properly within the warranty period. The report given by the OP NO. 3 as expert report is not proper because there is no signature of any expert persons/teams with their proper qualification. Even in the Job card, produced by the OP No. 3 is found not correct as there is no signature of the Customer with Collection date. So deficiency in service found on the part of OP No. 3 . In the other hand as the manufacturer, the whole responsibility goes to the OP NO. 1 to solve i.e properly repair/replace the mobile set. On the basis of a technician report, who could not repair the mobile set is not genuine and on the basis of said report the OP No. 1 remained silent and not take any further step to solve the problem of the Complainant is deficiency in service and unfair Trade Practice on the part of the OP No. 1. In the other hand it is the duty of the Retailer i.e OP NO. 2 to give detail address and contact number of the manufacturer to the Complainant so that the Complainant can lodge complain before the OP NO. 1 properly. So deficiency of service also found on the part of the OP NO. 2. Accordingly it is ordered.

                                                ORDER

The O.P No. 1 is directed to replace the Mobile set over a new Mobile set of the same model Mobile set along with fresh warranty or return the sale price of the Mobile set of Rs. 5,999/- and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses to the Complainant and also the OP NO. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to pay  Rs. 15,000/-  each separately towards negligence, deficiency in service to the Complainant as Compensation within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the whole amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 5^th day of June, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.