Date of filing: 26-10-2015 Date of order : 15-11-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA, Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Wednesday, 15th day of November, 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 89 / 2015
C. Reddappa Reddy, S/o C. Vema Reddy,
Aged 30 years, R/a D. No.25/5,
C.C. Palli Post and Village,
Galiveedu Mandal, 516 267,
Y.S.R. District. … Complainant.
Vs.
- Shadu Khan cell point and Book Stall,
Besides New Deluxe Hotel,
Rayachoty Road, Galiveedu Town and Mandal,
Y.S.R. District- 516 267.
2. Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager,
# 73-1-10/1, 73-1-13, 3rd Floor,
M.G. Road, (Bandaru Road),
Opposite to Durga Mahal,
Patamata, Vijayawada-520006.
- Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Regd. Office:A-25, Ground Floor,
Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
New Delhi-110 044.
- The APSPDCL, Rep. by its Divisional Engineer,
Rayachoty Division, Rayachoty Town,
YSR District. ….. Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 2-11-2017 in the presence of Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant and Opposite party no.1 appeared as in person, Sri Bhaskar Poluri, Advocate for O.P.no.2 and 3 Sri C.S. Riyazuddin, Advocate for O.P.no.4, and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),
1) The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act). The complainant purchased a mobile Samsung Model 3322 from respondent no.1 for a sum of Rs.3,300/- on 24-6-2013. The respondent no.2 and 3 are manufacturers, warranty is one year on 12-2-2014 at 2 p.m. the said mobile blasted in the hands of complainant while he admitted to charge it. The mobile blasted immediately after connecting charger. The complainant sustained electrical burns involving injuries over left fore arm, left side chest, right hand and both foots, discoloration of left thumb, little finger index finger. He admitted at Tirupathi Hospital. There were four operations conducted for amputation of thumb and little finger up to “DIP” left hand. The complainant incurred Rs.25,000/-towards hospital charges and Rs.1,50,000/- towards additional charges like transport, lodging and boarding.
2) On 25-2-2014 the complainant’s brother by name C. Indrasena Reddy lodged a complaint at Kadapa, where the authorized service centre of Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd., is located, for compensation under product liability as the complainant sustained burns and injured due to blast of mobile which has inherent defect. The complainant received a letter dt. 5-3-2014 from respondent no.2 in which it was informed that his case was not be considered under the product liability as the case and the origin of damage to the mobile is due to some external source, it is just and necessary to suspect the electrical supply supplied by the respondent no.4. The reason of blast of mobile phone may be due to inherent defects of mobile produced by respondent no.2 and 3 or by the fluctuations in supply of electricity by R4. All the respondents are liable to pay compensation for the loss sustained by the complainant and also causing permanent disability to him. Before the incident the complainant was hale and healthy and was doing agricultural works in an extent of 8.00 acres in his village fields and he was getting income of Rs.2,00,000/- per year and also doing a part time job as water shed assistant in “IWMP” Nooliveedu and he was getting Rs.750/- as Honorarium. Due to this incident he became unfit to do both works. The complainant was treated at Poornas Remedy Hospital, Tirupathi. Due to manufacturing defects in the mobile associated with fluctuations in power supply the mobile blasted. So, there is deficiency of service on all 1 to 4 respondents. The complainant was issued disability certificate by medical board ”RIMS” Hospital, Kadapa as 80%. So meet his personal activities the complainant needed a personal assistant support for that he spent Rs.1000/- p.m. the complainant suffered a lot of unbearable pain due to the incident.
3) The complainant lodged a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court , Lakkireddypalli under section 200 CRPC against the respondent praying to take cognizance and also furnish the respondents under section 420 with 326 IPC and the same was forwarded to Galideedu Police station for enquiry and report. On the SHO, Galiveedu made an enquiry and find loss sustained by the complainant was incurred by the respondents 1 to 4. It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Forum pleased to pass an order against the respondents and in favour of the complainant.
- To pay Rs.50,000/- towards hospitalization charges and rs.15,000/- additional charges for transportation , lodging and boarding together with interest at 24% from the above date of accident i.e., 12-2-2014 till the date of realization.
- To pay Rs.12,00,000/- for permanent disability.
- To pay Rs.1,50,000/- for loss of income.
- To pay Rs.45000/- for pain and suffering mental agony.
- To pay rs.4,000/- towards costs of the complaint and other reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
4) O.P. no.1 called absent .
5) O.P. no.2, 3 and 4 are filed counters. Written arguments of O.P. no.2 and 3 filed. It is suspicious nature of products of Samsung Mobile Model No.3322 by the complainants the memo written as “CARBON” which was cut off and written as “Samsung 3322”. It is company practice that when ever a mobile phone is sold the “IMEI” number shall be recorded on the sale invoice as it is very crucial for identifying the mobile phone to the purchase memo. Such IMEI number missing in the cash memo. The tin number is missing on the invoice. Thus the complainant has failed to establish the genuineness of the bill there is no defect in the manufacturing. As per technical report a mobile has not blasted as per the complaint lodged by the brother of the complainant C. Indrasena Reddy, dt. 25-2-2014 is baseless as there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile for the same the letter Dt. 5-3-2014 by Samsung Electronics India private ltd to inform that there is no liability of damage to the mobile phone. There may be electrical defect by fluctuations of electricity by opposite party no.4. the expert teams of the government found that there was no fault with the charger the charger was in good condition and the same was return to the customer. The battery is also in good condition. Internal pad is in good condition. Battery sitting area has not suffered any damage except soot formed on the plastic parts at few corners. The photograph of plastic case indicates that it is not burnt/broken/blasted and therefore the blast has sought to be presented by the complainant is ruled out. The battery photograph clearly indicates that the battery is only swollen but not exploded. The photograph of the rear casing PBA and charging jacks evidences that there is no sign of explosion. The O.P.s are not responsible for the injuries caused to the complainant. It is therefore brought that this Hon’ble Forum may please to dismiss the complaint. Additional written version filed by the O.P.2 and 3. The O.Ps having denied entire averments and they are not liable any injuries sustained by the complainant. The analysis report filed for kind perusal of the Forum. There was no fault with charger and the charger was in good condition. The content of the certificate issued by the Medical Board of RIMS, kadapa indicating the percentage of disability that the complainant is strict proof the same. The complainant has to prove the income of Rs.2,00,000/- per year with evidence like Income Tax etc., The amendment of compensation the claim for Rs.12,000/- is unsustainable. So the complaint may be dismissed.
6) Written version of O.P.no.4, the complaint filed against O.P.no.4 neither just nor maintainable or on facts like, the complainants purchased of mobile and it is warranty one year for the said mobile phone from opposite party is beyond the knowledge of the O.P.no.4. There is no evidence to prove that there is negligence on the part of O.P.no.4, if there is negligence on the part of O.P.no.4 definitely the complainant would mentioned section of law in spite of section 420 and 326337 or 338 IPC. There is no complaint by the complainant nor other locality people as there was fluctuations in the power supply. The complainant given 161 clause (3) statement in Telugu there is no mentioned of fluctuations of power supply before the police. Only there is defect of battery and incident occurred there is no statement before the police about the power fluctuations by O.P.no.4. There are no bonafied grounds against the respondent no.4 in the complaint. So, the Honorable Forum may please dismiss the case in the interest of justice.
7)Witnesses examined for the complainant i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.6.
Witness examined for the respondents i.e., R.W.1.
Ex. A1 to Ex.A15 filed on behalf of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 filed on behalf of the Respondents no.2 and 3.
8) From the above averments these points were taken for consideration.
Point no.1:- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation
as prayed by him not ?
Point No.2 :- Whether there is deficiency of service and
negligence on the part of respondent no.1 to 4 or not ?
Point no.3 :- To what relief ?
9) Point No.1 and 2 :- It is clear the complainant had purchased mobile phone from the 1st respondent for Rs.3,300/- on 24-6-2013 under Ex.A1. As per Ex.A2 the cell phone was given at the service point of Samsung Company on 25-2-2014. After the mobile burnt the same mobile was sent to the Samsung Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., i.e., O.P.no.2 and O.P.no.2 replied to the brother of the complainant stating that there is no manufacturing defect in the hand set. The respondent no.1 and 2 did not denied the purchase of the mobile phone of Samsung Company. Ex. A4 clearly shows that the complainant had medical treatment at poornas remedy hospital, Tirupathi due to the blast of the mobile phone the complainant sustained disability of 80% under Ex. A5 which was issued by the RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. As the opposite parties 1,2 and 3 are not turned up to pay the compensation claimed due to blast of the mobile phone, the complainant issued legal notice through advocate under Ex.A6. Ex.A7 also supports the same. Ex.A8 photograph clearly shows the disability of the complainant. Ex.A9 is the Aadhar card of the complainant. Ex.A10 is the private complaint submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Lakkireddypalli on that the SHO Galiveedu P.S. submitted a report under Ex. A11 stating that the injuries is due to blast of Samsung Mobile and the complainant was shifted to Tirupathi hospital, and there the complainant undergone surgery two times and amputation of thumb and little fingure up to “DIP” left hand. Ex.A12 clearly proves admission and operations done to the complainant at poornas remedy hospital, Tirupathi, Ex.A13 also proves the same. A14 are the medical bills of the complainant. Ex,15 pattadar passbook clearly shows that the complainant has 8.00 acres of agricultural land. As per Ex. A15 the complainant ekes out his lively hood depending on the agricultural work only. There is warranty of one year from the date of purchase, the complainant had purchase and the mobile phone on 24-6-2013. The blast occurred on 12-2-2014.
10) The opposite parties 2 and 3 in their written version stated that on the perusal of the cash bill filed by the complainant it indicates suspicious nature of the purchase of the Samsung Mobile Model No.3322, it is the case on the opposite parties 2 and 3 sent the mobile for investigation under Ex.B1. Ex.B2 is filed by the O.P.no.4, Ex.B2 and B3 clearly shows that there are no fluctuations in supplying of electricity by O.P.no.4. as per Ex.B4 filed by the O.P.No.2 and 3. Ex.B5 is not support the case of the O.P.no.2 and 3 as the declaration was given in the name of the complainant and under signed one C. Indrasena Reddy. Ex.B6 and A2 are the same in this document also it is clearly mentioned the mobile was burnt.
11) After considering the material placed by both the parties and construed arguments advanced by them. We find that the complainant has to prove his case that there is deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps no.1, 2 and 3 as there is manufacturing defect of the mobile manufactured by 2 and 3 and sold by O.P.no.1. Unless there is manufacturing defect the mobile could not have blasted while charging the same. The complainant who is an agriculturist eaking out his livelihood on agriculture sustained permanent disability of his left hand, 80% disability certificate given by the Board , RIMS, kadapa, as such the complainant is adequately compensate for the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of O.P.no.1,2 and 3. However the complainant has no case against O.P.no.4 and complaint against O.P.no.4 is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly points 1 and 2 are answered.
12) Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the O.Ps 1,2 and 3 to pay jointly and severally to the complainant Rs.2,50,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards transportation and lodging, Rs.6,00,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of income and Rs.45,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.4,000/- towards costs of the complaint within 45 days of date of receipt of orders. Complaint against O.P. no.4 dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 15th day of November, 2017
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
Witnesses examined for the Complainant:
1) Evidence Affidavit of the Complainant i.e., Sri C. Reddappa Reddy, Dt. 22-2-2016.
2) Evidence Affidavit of the Brother of the Complainant i..e., Sri C. Indrasena Reddy,
Dt. 22-2-2016.
3) Evidence Affidavit of the Brother of the Complainant i.e., Sri C. Reddappa Reddy,
Dt. 22-2-2016.
4) Evidence Affidavit of the Paternal Uncle of the Complainant i.e., Sri C. Gurivi Reddy,
Dt. 22-2-2016.
5) Evidence Affidavit of the Neighbor of the complainant i.e., Sri Vemula Chandraiah,
Dt. 22-2-2016.
6) Witness i.e., Dr. C. Sanjeevaiah, summoned as PW6 and cross examined by the
respondents on dt. 28-7-2017.
Witnesses examined for the Opposite parties:
Evidence Affidavit of RW1 and cross examination of Sri Rajat Sharma on 9-3-2016.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Complainant :-
Ex: A1:-. Cash memo dt.24-6-2013 issued by the 1st respondent for Rs.3,300/- in
favour of the complainant.
Ex: A2:- Service request submitted by the brother of the complainant dt. 25-2-2014.
Ex: A3:- Reply notice sent by the 2nd respondent dt. 5-3-2014 addresses to the
brother of the complainant.
Ex: A4:- Discharge summaries ( two in number Purnas Remedy Hospital, Tirupathi).
Ex: A5:- Disability Certificate issued by the RIMS Hospital, Kadapa.
Ex: A6:- Legal notice dt. 5-11-2014 issued by the complainant to the respondents.
Ex: A7:- Four postal receipts dt. 5-11-2014 along with three acknowledgement cards.
Ex: A8:- Four photographs of the complainant.
Ex: A9:- Aadhar Card bearing No.931637503101 of the complainant.
Ex: A10:- Copy of private complaint submitted by the complainant before
the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Lakkireddy Palli.
Ex: A11:- Detailed report submitted by the Station House Officer, Galiveedu P.S.
to the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Lakkireddypallii.
Ex: A12:- Inpatient details bills two in number Purnas Remedy Hospital, Tiruapthi.
Ex: A13:- Money receipts (Three in number) issued by the Purnas Remedy Hospital,
Tirupathi.
Ex: A14:- Bunch of Medical bills issued by Smt. Lakshmi Devi Pharmacy,
Tirupathi, ( Ninety two in number).
Ex: A15:- Pattadhar pass book pertaining to the complainant’s maternal
grandmother G. Lakshumamma.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents : -
Ex:B1:- Original Investigation Report of Mobile.
Ex:B2:- Photo copy of the Log Register maintained by the authorities dt.12-2-14.
Ex:B3:- Letter issued from the Assistant Divisional Engineer, APSPDCL, Rayachoty to
The Divisional Engineer, APSPDCL, Rayachoty, Dt. 10-12-2015 along with
statement of villagers.
Ex:B4:- Analysis Report, Dt. 15-12-2015.
Ex:B5:- Photo copy of Declaration Dt. 25-2-14 issued by the complainant to the
respondent company.
Ex:B6:- Service request Dt. 25-2-2014.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate, Kadapa.
- Shadu Khan cell point and Book Stall,
Besides New Deluxe Hotel,
Rayachoty Road, Galiveedu Town and Mandal,
Y.S.R. Kadapa District-516 267.
- Sri Bhaskar Poluri, Advocate, Kadapa.
- Sri C.S. Riyazuddin, Advocate, Kadapa.
& & &
P.R.
