Haryana

Kaithal

141/21

Naveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aditya Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Jai Parkash Dhull

04 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No.           141 of 2021.

                                                               Date of institution:             15.06.2021.

                                                               Date of decision:       04.12.2023.

 

Naveen Kumar age 25 years son of Shri Narender Singh, r/o Janki Puri Colony, Opp. Civil Hospital, Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Aditya Communication, G-17, Lala Lajpat Rai Shopping Complex, Kaithal, through its Proprietor.
2. Unique Mobiles Solutions, 1057/11, Marwa Complex KKR Road, Kaithal, through its Authorized Service Center.
3. Samsung India, 6^th Floor, DLF Center, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director/Authorized Person.

...Opposite Parties

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri Jai Parkash, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Shri Vinay Garg, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1.

                    Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

                   Shri Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for Opposite Party No.3.

                  

ORDER - NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased a mobile make Samsung Model No.SM-A50-S from OP No.1 vide cash memo Sr. No.4772 dated 23.10.2020 amounting Rs.16,000/-. The said mobile phone was having heating issue from the very first day and in the month of March 2021, there was temperature issue and he visited to authorized service center OP No.2, but they ignored his issue. On 21.3.2021, the mobile phone while it was in use suddenly heat up and blasted. Thereafter, on 22.3.2021, he visited OP No.2 and deposited the mobile phone with it. After that, he contacted OP No.2 about the mobile phone, who finally refused on 15.04.2021 to change the mobile phone with the remarks “Burnt handset during investigation, it is found that got damaged from external force and further damaging the battery as per policy it cannot be covered under policy claim”, but the mobile phone was burnt due to manufacturing/internal defect having manufacturing defect in it. The above act and conduct of OPs, not to replace the defective mobile phone, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 3 appeared before this Commission and filed their respective written statements, whereas, OP No.2 failed to appear before this Commission, on the date fixed i.e. 13.08.2021, despite receipt of notice of this Commission, as such, OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte, on that date, by this Commission.

4.                OP No.1, in its written statement raised preliminary objections regarding locus-standi; cause of action; jurisdiction; complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties etc.

5.                OP No.3, in its written statement stated that admittedly on receipt of information about the alleged incident, the product specialist team of OP immediately inspected the mobile phone submitted by the complainant and after intensive diagnosis and investigation, it was found that the cause of damage to the mobile was not due to any defect in the mobile, but due to some external source/reason, (FORCE APPLICATION FROM OUTSIDE TO INSIDE FROM FRONT SIDE) and not due to product fault or failure and due to which the mobile in question got burnt. The display of the mobile was found completely damaged from outer side and inner side of display was found less damage. Meaning thereby, if the alleged damage would have been caused from battery malfunctioning, display would have completely damaged from inside to outside, but as per the report of the expert team of OP, the damage is not due to battery failure. Moreover, the expert team has revealed in its report that battery of the mobile found damaged and burnt from extensive external impact resulting to damage of insulation between +ve and –ve layer of battery cell. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

6.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C5.

7.                On the other hand, OP No.1 did not lead any evidence, in its defence. OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.RW1, Ex.RW2 along with documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

9.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased a mobile make Samsung Model No.SM-A50-S from OP No.1 vide cash memo Sr. No.4772 dated 23.10.2020 amounting Rs.16,000/-. He further argued that the said mobile phone was having heating issue from the very first day and in the month of March 2021, there was temperature issue and the complainant visited to authorized service center OP No.2, but they ignored his issue. He further argued that on 21.3.2021, the mobile phone, while it was in use, suddenly heat up and blasted and on 22.3.2021, the complainant visited OP No.2 and deposited the mobile phone with it. After that, the complainant contacted OP No.2 about the mobile phone, who finally refused on 15.04.2021 to change the mobile phone with the remarks “Burnt handset during investigation, it is found that got damaged from external force and further damaging the battery as per policy it cannot be covered under policy claim”, but the mobile phone was burnt due to manufacturing/internal defect having manufacturing defect in it. The above act and conduct of OPs, not to replace the defective mobile phone, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part. In order to support his case, he placed reliance on the case law titled Apple India Private Limited, Appellant Versus Prashant Khanduri etc., First Appeal No.168/2016, Date of Decision 29.07.2022 (State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun).

10.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.3 has argued that on receipt of information about the alleged incident, the product specialist team of OP immediately inspected the mobile phone submitted by the complainant and after intensive diagnosis and investigation, it was found that the cause of damage to the mobile was not due to any defect in the mobile, but due to some external source/reason, (FORCE APPLICATION FROM OUTSIDE TO INSIDE FROM FRONT SIDE) and not due to product fault or failure and due to which the mobile in question got burnt. He further argued that the display of the mobile was found completely damaged from outer side and inner side of display was found less damage. Meaning thereby, if the alleged damage would have been caused from battery malfunctioning, display would have completely damaged from inside to outside, but as per the report of the expert team of OP, the damage is not due to battery failure. Moreover, the expert team has revealed in its report that battery of the mobile found damaged and burnt from extensive external impact resulting to damage of insulation between +ve and –ve layer of battery cell. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

11.              There is no dispute that the complainant purchased one Samsung mobile phone model No.A-50S from OP No.1 on 23.10.2020 for Rs.16,000/- vide bill Annexure C-1.  

12.              As per complainant, the mobile in question was having heating problem from the starting and in this regard, in March 2021 he approached to authorized service center OP No.2. Complainant further alleged that on 21.3.2021, the mobile phone while it was in use, suddenly heat up and blasted and thereafter, on 22.3.2021, he visited OP No.2 and deposited the mobile phone with it vide job sheet Annexure C-2, in which, in Defect Description column, it is mentioned “OCTA, DAMAGE BURNT HANDSET”. In that job sheet Annexure C-2, in Repair Description, it is mentioned by hand that “Burnt handset. During investigation, it is found that HHP got damaged from external force and further damaging the battery. As per policy it cannot be covered under PL claim”.  

13.              In this regard, learned counsel for OP No.3 has argued that after intensive diagnosis and investigation, it was found that the cause of damage to the mobile was not due to any defect in the mobile, but due to some external source/reason, (FORCE APPLICATION FROM OUTSIDE TO INSIDE FROM FRONT SIDE) and not due to product fault or failure and due to which the mobile in question got burnt. He further argued that the display of the mobile was found completely damaged from outer side and inner side of display was found less damage, meaning thereby, if the alleged damage would have been caused from battery malfunctioning, display would have completely damaged from inside to outside, but as per the report of the expert team of OPs, the damage is not due to battery failure. Moreover, the expert team has revealed in its report that battery of the mobile found damaged and burnt from extensive external impact resulting to damage of insulation between +ve and –ve layer of battery cell. To support his above contentions, he placed Warranty Card as Annexure R-1 and Technical Analysis report as Annexure R-2.

14.              To support his contentions, learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon case law titled Apple India Private Limited, Appellant Versus Prashant Khanduri etc. (supra), wherein, the appellant refused to replace or refund the cost price of the mobile handset to the complainant/respondent, on the ground that while checking physical condition of the mobile handset, found a crack in the mobile and told that mobile phone will not be covered under warranty due to physical damage. But the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun had allowed the complaint of complainant and directed the appellant to refund the cost of the mobile handset along with compensation amount and litigation expenses. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the said order, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun vide its order dated 29.07.2022.

15.              In the case in hand, due to some manufacturing defect, the mobile handset of the complainant was suddenly heat up and blasted during the warranty period, but OP No.3 refused to replace the same, on the ground of physical damage. As such, the case of complainant is squarely covered under the aforesaid authority.

16.              Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down by the superior Fora in the aforesaid case and the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the mobile in question of complainant got burnt within the warranty period and OP No.3, being the manufacturer of the same, failed either to replace or refund its cost price, to the complainant, which amounts to gross deficiency in their service. As per record, the complainant purchased the mobile in question on 23.10.2020 and made his first complaint regarding the defective in the mobile, with the OPs in the month of March 2021, meaning thereby, the complainant used the mobile phone for about six months. So, in view of above facts, in our view, the end of justice would be met if we direct OP No.3, to pay 75% of the cost price of the mobile in question i.e. Rs.12,000/- (16000 x 75%) to the complainant.

17.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OP No.3 and dismiss the same against OPs No.1 & 2. We direct OP No.3 to refund Rs.12,000/-, to the complainant. OP No.3 is further directed to make the compliance of this order, within a period of 45 days, from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the award amount shall carry the interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization.

18.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:04.12.2023.

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.