IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 31st day of January, 2018
Filed on 30..05..2017
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
C.C.No.142/2017
between
Complainants:- Opposite Parties:-
- Sri.Sasalakumar.K.S 1. Chief Operating Officer
Konattusseri Veli Samsung India Electronics Ltd.
S.L.Puram. P.O 7th & 8th Floor, IFCI Tower 6
Alappuzha Nehru Palace New Delhi 110019
2. Sri. Sujith.S
Senior Manager Partnering HR Samsung India Electronics Ltd, No.85/1, Nak Tower
Dr. Rahdakrishnan Road, Mylapur
Chennai-600004
3. Sacaria
Branch Manager
Samsung India Electronics Ltd
27/224/B &, Muthun Towers
K P Vallan Road
Kadavanthara 682020
- Xpress Solutions
147N, skyhone tower shopping
Cherthala 688 524
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile phone on 18.9.2016. The opposite parties assured 1 year warranty for the product. On 3.5.2017 the complainant noticed that the display of the said phone is not working and on the very next day the complainant approached the authorized service centre for repairing the same. The service engineer inspected the phone and intimated the complainant that the display of the said phone is broken and which will not covered under warranty and demanded charges for repairing. According to the complainant the opposite parties assured 1 year warranty for the product and the defect arose within the warranty period so he is entitled to get its repaired free of cost. Since the opposite party refused the same the complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
- Notice was served to the opposite parties 1 and 4. 1st opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. Notice against 2nd and 3rd opposite party returned as left.
- Version of the 1st opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant brought the hand set on 4/5/2017 and 23/5/2017 to the service centre and it was noticed that handset was dead and display was broken rear panel/ case paint removed, LCD broken. Which clearly shown that the set was having no manufacturing defect and the defect arose solely due to the mishandling of the set and negligence by the complainant. The phone has physical damage so free service is not allowed. That the complaint had also lodged a complaint at Samsung service centre on 4/5/2017 and the complainant visited the service centre. The service centre informed the complainant after initial check up that the handset had display damages and that the display of the mobile set was broken and also had water damages due to which other defects had occurred which would be repaired subject to an amount of Rs. 2,500/- for its repair. The service centre also informed the complainant that the there was no manufacturing defects in the said mobile set. The mobile set defects could be rectified by the technician who had happened due to physical and water damage done to the mobile set. Therefore the defects caused to the mobile set had occurred due to physical damage and mishandling of the same which are not included in the terms and conditions of the warranty of mobile set.
The opposite parties have time and again informed the complainant that the defects in the mobile set if any had occurred due to physical damages and mishandling and that warranty terms and condition does not cover for the same and that the complainant shall not be entitled for any free service due to mishandling of the mobile set by him. And the contention of the complainant for unfair trade practice is denied in full and the action of the Opposite parties was in according to the warranty terms and conditions. The opposite party shall not be liable to pay compensations as the defect if any occurred in the mobile set was due to the physical and water damage caused by the complainant. And therefore under the terms and conditions of the warranty of said mobile set it was no mentioned that free repair or service/ replacement would be provided in case physical damages had done to the mobile set. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.
- The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Ext.A1 to A3 were marked.
- Considering the allegations of the complainant and contentions of 1st opposite party the forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the
Opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief sought for?
- The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties assured 1 year warranty for the product and during the warranty period the product became defective and the opposite parties demanded to pay the repair charges. According to the opposite parties the damage caused is physical damage and which will not cover under warranty. According to the 1st opposite party as per the terms and conditions of the warranty physical damage will not cover under warranty. So they requested the complainant to pay repairing charges
- The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Ext.A1 – A3 were marked. Ext.A1 is the service request dated 4/5/2017. In Ext.A1 the description of the defect is mentioned as “Display broken” and the warranty status is mentioned as ‘out of warranty’. ExtA2 series is the copy of e-mail. Ext.A3 is the Tax invoice dated 20-5-2017 which shows that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 2,368/- towards repairing. Admittedly the display of the handset was broken and as per the terms and conditions of warranty physical damage will not come under warranty. So we can’t direct the opposite parties to repair the product free of cost as claimed by the complainant. On a perusal of Ext.A3 it can be seen that the opposite parties have charged an amount of Rs. 2368/- for replacing the broken display. The complainant failed to prove that the mobile phone has nay manufacturing defect and there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. So we can’t hold opposite parties liable for any deficiency in service. The complaint fails.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of January, 2018.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainants:-
PW1 - Sasalakumar(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Job Sheet dtd. 04/5/2017.
Ext.A2 - Copy of E-mail
Ext.A3 - Copy of Tax Invoice dtd.26/5/2017
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- br/-
Compared by:-
