BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 30^th November 2016

PRESENT

        SMT. C.V. SHOBHA             :  HONBLE PRESIDENT

        SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI        :  HONBLE MEMBER                                        

COMPLAINT NO.96/2015

        (Admitted on 28.02.2015)

Ms. Prajna,

D/o Udaya Kumar Shetty,

Siddarth,

Kadambodi Road,

Hosabettu- Kulai Post,

Mangalore, D.K. Dist.

                                                             ……… Complainant

(Advocate for Complainant by Sri. BAS)

VERSUS

1. The Manager,

M/s. Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt. Ltd,

No. 276, 2^nd Floor,

City Centre Mall,

K.S.Rao Road,

                    Mangalore

2. Managing Director,

M/s. Samsung Mobile Pvt. Ltd,

Head Office, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th Floor,

Tower C Vipul tech

Square old Golf Road, Sector-43,

Gurgaon 122002.

3. Authorized Signatories,

Samsung Authorized service Centre,

Shree Ram Building PVS Circle,

M.G.Road, Mangalore 575003.

                                              …. Opposite Parties

        (Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1: SNM)

        (Opposite Party No.2 and 3: Exparte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER

SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI

1. 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging defect in hand set as against the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

          The complainant had purchased I8262 Galaxy Core-1.1 Samsung No. 359710053495702 model mobile phone with accessories from Opposite Party No.1 for a consideration of Rs. 13,396/ paid in cash vide their cash invoice No. SI/CCM/10105 dated 26.01.2014 (cash Memo enclosed).

          That above said mobile phone had a warranty period of one year as per the catalogue and warranty card.  In additional to the Warranty the mobile was also covered by Insurance vide Insurance policy No. 421100/48/2014/160 by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited.  That the mobile phone from the date of its purchase it was not working properly according to the Opposite Parties product specification.  In the month of June 2014 the mobile phone became dead and when the complainant took the same to the service centre of Opposite Party No.2 it was repaired without cost.  When the complainant enquired about the cause for mobile becoming dead they did not replied properly and never bothered to give proper answer to the complainant.  Once again during the month of November 2014 the mobile phone became dead within the warranty period, hence the complainant took the mobile phone to the Opposite Parties authorized service centre.     

The complainant on hearing that the mobile phone cannot be repaired as it is not covered by the warranty showed the warranty card and pleaded to repair the mobile phone, but the service centre people of Opposite Party No.2 informed that the mobile is water logged and the same is not covered by warranty or insurance but the reasons given by them was not correct.  After the Opposite Party rejecting to repair the mobile without payment of charges, the complainant wrote a letter dated 26.11.2014 by registered post acknowledgement, informing the Opposite Party No.1,2 and 3 to either repair the mobile or replace the mobile set, but the Opposite Party neither replied nor acted upon the letter given by the complainant, hence the above complainant filed under section 12 of the C.P Act 1986 (here in after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this Forum to pay sum of estimated as Rs.37,912/ and along with interest at 18% p.a and cost of the proceedings.

3. Version Notice served to the opposite party by RPAD, inspite of serving notice to the opposite parties.  Opposite party No. 1 appeared through their counsel and filed version, opposite party No. 2 and 3 not appeared hence placed expate, the opposite party No. 1 submits that  the complainant has purchased a I8262 Galaxy Core -1.1 mobile hand set bearing IMEI No. 359710053495702 of M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt, Limited.  M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt, limited is only responsible for all the defects arisen out of the mobile set.  This is clearly mentioned in the manual book as well as in the invoice given by this Opposite Party at the time of sale of the mobile set to the complainant. Further looking into above aspects this Opposite Party has taken at most care in attending to the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of this Opposite Party rendered to the complainant and the one alleged in the complaint is made just to make a ground to file this complaint and without prejudice the 1^st Opposite Party submits that on what ground the authorized service centre of the manufacturer i.e. the 3^rd Opposite Party has rejected the claim of the complainant is not within the knowledge of this Opposite Party. The Opposite Party No.1 further submits that a copy of the invoice under which the complainant has purchased the mobile set wherein it has been stated that only manufacturer is responsible.
4. In support of the complainant One Ms. Prajna (CW1) complainant No.1 filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced the document got marked as Ex C1 to C7. On behalf of the opposite parties not lead any evidence hence treated nil.

In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the complainant proves that purchased I8262 Galaxy Core- 1.1 Samsung No. 359710053495702 model mobile set from the 26-01-2014 opposite party found to be defective?
2. Whether the complainant proves that  there is a deficiency  of service on the part of the Opposite Parties
3. If so, for what relief and from whom the complainant entitled?
4. What order? 

We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:.

Point No. (i) to (iii): As per Affirmative

Point No. (iv): As per the final order.

REASONS

5. POINTS No. (i) to (iii):  The complainant in order to substantiate the averments made in the complaint filed affidavit supported by the documents.  The Ex C1 is the original invoice dated 26.01.2014.  Which shows that the complainant paid Rs. 13,396/ for purchase of handset.  The Ex C2 is the warranty card other Exhibits are delivery challan and legal notice along with postal acknowledgment and receipt.From the above documents it is revealed that the new hand set purchased by the complainant is not working and the defective handset produced before the forum along with the complaint that has been marked as M.O. No.1 Further we noted that the material evidence placed by the complaint it is proved that the above said handset is not working and the same has some defect within warranty period.  Which shows that the Opposite Party failed to maintain the quality or standard which is required to be maintained. It is settled position that a person purchaser a new hand set only for his/her use and not to suffer the inconvenience of repeated visits to the workshop and frequent  deprivation of the case of the hand due to such snags.  Similarly in the present case, the complainant purchased the hand set by paying Rs. 13,396/ even thereafter in complainant approached the Opposite Party with several problems it shows the quality and standard of manufacturing of the produced sold by the Opposite Party. Generally, if the mobile hand set has manufacturing defect is to be borne by the manufacturer.  That would not mean that, the dealer is absolved from joint and several liabilities.  As we know, the manufacturer not deals with the customers directly dealer having received the amount under taken free service and rectify defect during the warranty do not escape liability towards the manufacturing defect found in the mobile hand set.  As we know, the contract through dealer/service provider, private of contract is with them.  To ensure execution expeditiously and immediately, if necessary by making the payment/ replacement to the complainant initially and then it would be for the dealer to claim reimbursement from the manufacturer.  Therefore the dealer service enter and the manufacturer are jointly and severally liable for the defect found in the mobile hand set in this case. In view of the above said reasons, we hold that the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally shall refund of the cost of the mobile hand set of Rs. 13,396/ by taking back the defective hand set i.e. M.O. No.1 and also pay of Rs. 10,000/ as damage to the complainant for the inconvenience and harassment caused.  Further pay Rs. 5,000/ as litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
6.  In the result, accordingly we pass the following Order:

ORDER

The complaint allowed.  The Opposite Party No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally shall refund of the cost of the mobile hand set of Rs. 13,396/ (Rupees thirteen thousand three hundred ninety six only) by taking back the defective hand set and also pay of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand only) as damage to the complainant for the inconvenience and harassment caused.  Further pay Rs. 5,000/ (Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

          In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount with in the stipulated time, the opposite parties are directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above said total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties and therefore the file shall be consigned to record room.

(1 to 7 pages dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th of November 2016)                                

             MEMBER                                               PRESIDENT        

(SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)                           (SMT. C.V.SHOBHA)

D.K. District Consumer Forum                  D.K. District Consumer Forum

           Mangalore.                                                     Mangalore.

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW 1: Ms. Prajna

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: Bill dated 26.01.2014.

Ex.C2: Warranty Card.

Ex.C3: Insurance Policy covered under the Bill dated 26.01.2014.

Ex.C4: Service request Letter.                               

Ex.C5: Representation letter dated 26.11.2014

Ex.C6: Postal Receipts.

Ex.C7: Postal Acknowledgement.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Nil 

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:   

Nil

Dated: 30.11.2016.                                               MEMBER