Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/35/2020

Kailash Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Managing Director Samsung India Electronics PVT Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

T.K.Praharaj and Associates

01 Nov 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                             CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 35/2020

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

 

Kailash Prasad, S/O-Late Gautam Prasad,

R/O- Modipara, Modipara, PO- Modipara,

P.S.- Town, Dist:- Sambalpur-768002, Odisha   ……...………..Complainant

                    Versus

1. The Managing Director Samsung India Electronics PVT Ltd.,

A-25 Ground Floor Front tower Mohan

Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044      

2. The proprietor/Manager Reliance Retail Ltd,

Reliance Digital 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Plot No. 262,

Khata No.279 (A) Unit No.14, Danipali, Sambalpur Town,

Ainthapali, Po- Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali

Tah/Dist- Sambalpur.                                         

3. The Manager, Samsung customer Service,

M/s Dibyansi in Front of  Budharaja Petrol Pump,

Sambalpur-768004, Odisha.                                ………………..Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-Sri. T.K.Praharaj, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P. No.1                                    :-Sri. S.K.Mohanty, Advocate & Associates
3. For the O.P.No.2                          :-Sri. P.K.Pattanaik, Advocate & Associates
4. For the O.P. No.3                                    :-Ex-parte

 

Date of Filing:02.12.2020,Date of Hearing :13.09.2022, Date of Judgement : 01.11.2022

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT,

1. The case of the Complainant is that on 13.05.2017 the Complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy S-8 Mobile set through online payment from O.P. No.2 for 57,900/-, Reliance Digital(Reliance Retail Ltd.)Store, Sambalpur. The set was heated while connected to charger within one month of purchase. Complaint was made to O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.2 advised to report to the O.P. No.3 regarding replacement/repair of the mobile set. The mobile set was having screen problem and not functioning properly. The O.P. No.3 did not respond and the warranty period lapsed. On 14.08.2018 when the Complainant asked for his mobile set, the O.P. No.3 demanded service charges of Rs. 13,798/- as the warranty period lapsed on 13.05.2018. In order to lapse warranty period the O.P. No.3 was always taking plea that service engineer is not available.

The O.P. No.1 is the administrative head of O.P. No.2 & 3. For deficiency in service of the O.Ps the complaint has been filed.

2. The O.P. No.1 in its version submitted that the O.P. No.1 is the manufacturer. The Complainant has not submitted any expert opinion for which manufacturing defect can not be established. No any service report has been obtained from O.P. No.3. The complaint is barred by limitation. After warranty period complaint has been lodged. The warranty is not available in case of physical damage of the mobile set due to mishandling. Till 14.08.2018 no any complaint has been lodged. During warranty period the Complainant not availed any service. After Warranty period charges of Rs. 13,798/- claimed from Complainant. Authorised service centre is an independent and separate entity, which use to claim and fulfill its commercial interest from the manufacturer against service provided to Consumer. The Complainant served a lawyer notice dated 04.02.2020. Reply has been given on 27.02.2020 to provide certain information. The Complainant remained silent and again served notice dated 27.10.2020 disclosing complaint number, product model etc. and the O.P. No.1 has given reply to the letter. There is no any deficiency in service or manufacturing defect on the product. The O.P. No.1 has submitted the sequence of events.

 

                                    16.09.2014           : Alleged mobile purchased with one year warranty.

                                    16.09.2015 : Warranty expired.

13.05.2018 :Claim for service lodged before Authorised service centre for     the First time.

14.08.2018 : Estimate provided by service centre on alleged defects on display and blinking.

04.02.2020 : Demand Notice through Lawyer.

04.02.2020 :Reply of the O.P. No.1

27.10.2020 :2^nd notice served by the Complainant

11.11.2020 :Reply provided by the O.P. No.1

                                  09.12.2020 : Complaint filed before the Commission.

3. The Reliance Digital Store, O.P. No.2 submitted its version and stated that the O.P. No.2 has sold the mobile set of O.P. No.1 company with small commission. The manufacturer is responsible for any shortcomings, fault etc. on the product. The O.P. No.2 s not the service provider and accordingly advised complaint to approach O.P. No.1 & 3. There is no any cause of action against the O.P. No.2.
4. The O.P. No.3 has not filed any version nor attended the Commission for which set ex-parte.
5. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant and parties. The following issues are framed:

103606587.  

1. Is there any manufacturing defects or deficiency in service on the  part of the O.Ps relating to the Samsung S-8 mobile set purchased by the Complainant?
2. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation.
3. What relief the complaint is entitled to get?

Issue No.1 Is there any manufacturing defects or deficiency in service on the  part of the O.Ps relating to the Samsung S-8 mobile set purchased by the Complainant?

The Complainant purchased the Samsung S-8 model mobile set for Rs. 57,900/- from O.P. No.2 store on 13.05.2017 model No. SM-G950FZKDINS and serial No. RZ8J41QNBXP. The Complainant has not filed any documents relating to service details i.e. job card. After the purchase and between the period of warranty one year i.e. 13.05.2018 no any documentary evidence filed by the Complainant regarding and defects in the handset. For the first time service request has been made on 14.08.2018. The O.P. No.3 on 14.08.2018 gave an estimate of Rs. 13,798.99P for repair and replacement of part No. GH-97-20457A and GH 82-14108A with GST 18%. Smt. M.Mohanty, Advocate, Sambalpur issued lawyer notice dated 04.02.2020. The O.P. No.1 gave the reply notice dated 27.02.2020 and sort for serial number, complaint details etc. On 27.10.2020 Smt. M.Mohanty Advocate, Sambalpur provided through her reply notice, the complaint number, product model, Sl. No. and valid Phone number to the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 vide reply notice dated 11.11.2020 informed that the warranty period is over and requested to produce before authorised service centre for chargeable repair.

From the Supra events discussed it is clear that during warranty period the Complainant not availed any service of the O.P. No.3. Complainant approached the O.P. No.3 for repair and the O.P. No.3 provided the estimate of chargeable repair.

The defects in the mobile hand set has been raised after the warranty period by the Complainant, hence conclusion can be drawn that there was no any manufacturing defects and also in absence of expert opinion of the authorised laboratory.

Relating to deficiency in service, the Complainant failed to establish within the warranty period service availed from O.P. No.3, the authorised service centre.

The issue is answered in favour of the O.Ps.

Issue No.2 Whether the complaint is barred by limitation

The complaint has been lodged on 02.12.2020 before this Commission. It is the admission of the O.P. No.1 that for first time the Complainant approached the O.P. No.3 and the service centre provided estimate of Rs. 13,798/- on 14.08.2018. After two years three months eighteen days the complaint was filed on 02.12.2020 which is above two years.

On the limitation point also the complaint suffers.

The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.3 What relief the complaint is entitled to get?

The Complainant approached the dealer in a belated stage along with the service centre. Information has been provided to the manufacturer in belated stage and it is beyond limitation. Accordingly, from the facts and circumstances of the case the Complainant is not entitled for any relief. It is ordered:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed on contest against O.P. No.1 & 2 and ex-parte against O.P. No.3. The parties are to bear their own cost.

Order pronounced in 1^st day of Nov. 2022.

Supply free copies to the parties.