BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 11th April 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDER IN
C.C.No.276/2013
(Admitted on 22.10.2013)
Mr. Jude Fugle,
S/o L.A Fugle,
Aged 40 years,
R/At Block No.2, Telecom Apartments,
Attavar, Mangalore, D.K.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri AKK)
VERSUS
- The Authorized Signatory, Reliance Digital Retail Limited,
City Centre Mall, K.S. Rao Road, Hampankatta,
Mangalore.
- The Authorized Signatory Prabhath Infocom,
Samsung Authorized Service Centre,
Shop No.G.9, Divya Enclave, Jail Road,
Mangalore 575003.
- The Authorized Signatory, Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd,
A.25, Ground floor, Front Tower,
Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
New Delhi 110044.
….........OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1: Sri KDR)
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2: Ex parte)
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.3: Sri. TNR)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER
T.C. RAJASHEKAR:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against claiming, the Opposite Parties to refund the purchase value of Rs.18,162.85 with additional money collected towards extended warranty, to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of purchase till refund, to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/ and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/ towards cost of this proceeding.
2. In support of the above complaint the complainant Mr. Jude Fugle, filed affidavit evidence as (CW1) and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C5 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. Srinivas Joshi, (RW1) Senior Manager in customer and Mr. Ritesh Alimar (RW2) Store Manager also filed affidavit evidence and answered to the interrogatories served on them.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
We have perused the complaint and the version of the parties. We found the dispute as is with regard to the defect in the mobile set purchased and the opposite party not responded for the complaint. The complainant alleges that he had purchased a SAMSUNG mobile hand set Model No 18552 from opposite party No 1and within few days of purchase there started problem. On
approaching the opposite party No 1 he directed the complainant to the opposite party No 2 the service center of opposite party No 3 and the opposite party No 2 tried to repair and could not repair and stated that it has to be sent to Bangalore opposite party No 3 office. There after even after so many enquiries the opposite party No 2 not returned the mobile set and hence deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite party No 1 contended that he is only the dealer and sold the mobile set to the complainant but not responsible or accountable for the defect in it. It is the only opposite party No 2 and 3 are liable. The opposite party No 3 contended that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile and only minute problem which is rectified and kept for delivery with good working condition but the complainant refused to take delivery of the mobile. These are being the facts of dispute we consider the following
POINTS FOR ADJUDICATION
We have taken into consideration the evidence led and the documents produced. The admitted facts are, the purchase of the mobile set, the mobile set given for repair for defect found, to the opposite party No 2. It is denied by the opposite parties that there is manufacturing defect in the hand set and the opposite parties could not able to repair it, and it is sent to Bangalore for minute repair, and even after so many enquiries opposite parties have not returned the handset. It is admitted the warranty of one year but denies that the replacement of whole unit has to be made in case of defect as per warranty condition. On reconciliation of the admissions and the denial we consider the following points in resolving this dispute.
- Whether the complainant is the consumer under the consumer protection Act 1986?
- Whether the complainant proved the manufacturing defect in the mobile and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for?
- What order?
On close examination of the evidence lead by the parties and the documents produced, we head the party submissions and answered the above points as under.
- In the affirmative.
- In the negative.
- In the negative.
- As per delivered order.
REASON
POINT NO 1: The complaint had produced the purchase bill as EX C 1 which shows the complainant had purchased the mobile set from the opposite party No 1 and the opposite party No 2 is the service center of opposite party No 3 where the complainant had given for servicing on finding defect in the mobile set. The opposite party No 3 is the manufacturer of the mobile set. As such there formed a relation of consumer and the trader/service provider. Hence we answered the point no 1 in the affirmative.
POINT NO 2 & 3: On close observation of the complaint it is revealed that, on purchasing the mobile set on 28.06.2013, the complainant found the mobile was hanging while receiving call and making calls. The complainant approached on 07.07.2013 the opposite party No 1 and the opposite party No 1 updated the software and returned the mobile set. After some days while making call the display showed NO SIM and given to opposite party No 2 on 22.07.2013 for repair, the opposite party No 2 on 31.07.2013 said that there is inherent defect in the mobile and said instrument has been sent to main office Bangalore. The complainant made several enquiries thereafter but no response from the opposite party No 2 and states that there is inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile hand set and as such it is not repairable. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not replacing/refunding the mobile hand set which turned to be a inherent defective one. As per opposite party No 3 version, they have not received the mobile hand set in their Bangalore office and the opposite party No 2 had not sent the mobile hand set to Bangalore. The opposite party No 3 submits that the complainant mobile hand set is provisioned with New micro SIM but the complainant tried to insert the old SIM which is bigger in size by altering the old SIM to suit for the mobile hand set of micro SIM. In this kind of situation sometimes there will be hanging problem but it is not manufacturing defect.
2. The complainant produced the document EX C 4 the Service Request report dated 31.07.2013. It was given for repair for the problem mentioned as SPEAKER PROBLEM (NO VOICE CLARITY). The other problem faced initially as hanging problem on 07.07.2013 is not supported by any documents or evidence. As such the only problem faced by the complainant is the voice problem. Even though the complainant stated in his complaint that the problem faced by him is of NO SIM on 31.07.2013. But the Service Request (EX-C 4) do not support this defect and the Service Request (EX C 4) is signed by the complainant and the problem complained of is SPEAKER PROBLEM (NO VOICE CLARITY).
3. Because of the one or two problems i.e. SPEAKER PROBLEM (NO VOICE CLARITY) or hanging problem faced by the complainant and other problems alleged is not proved we cannot term it as inherent manufacturing defect. Also we noticed that the complainant had not produced any warranty/guaranty card provided by the opposite party No 3 to show that he is entitled for replacement/refund if any defect found in the mobile hand set. However the complainant produced the document EX C 2 which termed by the complainant as additional warranty. But on seeing the document we conceived it as an maintenance agreement called ResQ Care Plan. It takes care of the repair maintenance requirement of the product only but not connected with the replacement/refund warranty extended by the opposite parties. In our opinion there is no either manufacturing defect or inherent defect.
4. The other submission of the opposite party No 3 is the mobile hand set is kept ready after replacing the speaker and it is in good working condition. The complainant contention is after taking the mobile hand set for repair the opposite party No 2 not responded even after so many enquiries and not returned the mobile hand set. In referring to interrogatories served by the opposite party and answer to it by the complainant, we noticed that in Q no 8 the complainant admits that the problem faced with the mobile hand set on 07.07.2013 is being set right and the mobile hand set was functioning normally. In Q No 24: For the suggestion on the different view taken by the complainant with regard to defect (NO SIM as in complaint and SPEAKER PROBLEM (NO VOICE CLARITY as in Service Request), the complainant answered the opposite party not allowed him to read the Service Request and hence not able to comment. In Q No 25 For a suggestion that the opposite party No 2 had replaced the speaker and corrected it and informed to take back the mobile hand set on 12.08.2013 the complainant answered as he is not remembering it now. The complainant not denied the information of request to take back the mobile hand set. In Q No 27; For a suggestion that even after getting information on 12.08.2013 the complainant has not collected the mobile hand set, the complainant answered as the mobile set given frequent trouble and he decided not to take it back.
5. From the above evidence we came to conclusion that the complainant even after getting the information of mobile hand set kept ready for delivery not taken back the mobile hand set and knocked our door. There is no warranty condition produced to enforce replacement/refund. However the opposite parties proved that they have addressed the problem faced by the complainant in both the occasion on 07.07.2013 and 31.07.2013 but the complainant has not turn up to collect the mobile hand set after kept ready. The complainant not proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence we answered the point No 2 in the negative and the point no 3 in the negative as well.
POINT NO 4: In the light of above discussions and the adjudication of the points we delivered the following
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 9 directly typed by Member, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 11th April 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(T.C. RAJASHEKR) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Jude Fugle,
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1: Bill No.C9961 dated 28.06.2013 for the purchase of above said mobile hand set
Ex C2: Extended Warranty Card issued by OP
Ex C3: Work Order No.4685 dated 22.07.2013
Ex.C4: Service Request dated 31.07.2013
Ex.C5: Copy of legal notice sent to Ops with postal receipts and Acknowledgements
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1: Mr. Srinivas Joshi, Senior Manager in customer
RW2: Mr. Ritesh Alimar, Store Manager
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 11.04.2017 MEMBER
