DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 27th day of February 2021
Present: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member(President I/c)
: Smt.Vidya.A, Member Date of Filing: 17/01/2019
CC /12/2019
Faizal Rahiman.S,
S/o.Sulaiman, - Complainant
Behind Police Quarters,
Sathram Street, Pudunagaram.
(By Adv.P.Sreeprakash)
V/s
CM Enterprises,- Opposite party
CSI Shopping Complex,
Near Mission School Junction,
TB Road, Palakkad.
O R D E R
By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
The facts of the complaint are briefly stated as follows:
The complainant is sole proprietor of a cement dealership by name Faisal & Company. The income from the business is the sole income of the complainant. Complainant had purchased a brand new tablet–model Name – SM–T 825NZKAINS on 31/08/2018 for an amount of Rs.47,900/-(Rupees Forty Seven Thousand Nine hundred only) from the opposite party who is an authorized dealer of Samsung. The complainant is the owner of that tablet, the complainant entered into a hire purchase agreement with Bajaj Finserv and paid the EMI amounts with due interest. Thereafter the tablet shows some kind of serious physical troubles, even though it is a new one and the complainant reported the same to the opposite party. The tablet was given to the service centre for servicing with the opposite party. Eventhough the tablet was under the period of warranty, the opposite party neither cured the defect nor replaced the tablet with a new one to the complainant. The original purchase bill issued by the opposite party is produced along with the complaint. The opposite party is the authorized dealer of Samsung as well as the service centre. Complainant pleads that as per the warranty registration card issued by the opposite party is offered upto one year from the date of the invoice. There was an extended warranty card for one year from the date of purchase in which it was mentioned 350 to 365 days from the date of invoice. It was informed that the tablet cannot be repaired and the complainant is unable to use the tablet due to touch problems and bend on screen problems. The complainant contacted the opposite party on several times and his attempt was futile and hence this complaint was filed before this Forum. According to the complainant eventhough the warranty is only for a limited period for one year, the product is expected to have a minimum life. When the product has no such minimum life that shows it is suffering from manufacturing defect which is clearly indicated in this matter. Also the complainant is quite sure that it is only due to the manufacturing defect this brand new tablet has he was unable for the proper usage of that. Hence the tablet delivered to the complainant is defective in nature. Supply and production of such a product will amount to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Due to the defect the complainant is not in a position to use the tablet from September 2018 onwards itself. In this regard, the complainant was entitled to get a compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. Complainant also pleads that the tablet has a serious manufacturing defect and complainant is entitled to get it replaced by a new one of the same model or to get an amount of Rs.47,900/-(Rupees Forty Seven thousand Nine hundred only) with interest at 18% p.a. Since the complaint was attended by the service centre on 19/11/2018, the complaint is filed within time. Hence it is respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to pass an order directing the opposite party to supply a new Samsung tablet within a specified time, failing which directing the opposite party to refund Rs.47,900/-(Rupees Forty Seven thousand Nine hundred only), with 18% interest per annum till realization of the amount.
The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party to enter their appearance and file their version. In the version filed by the opposite party, it is contended that except those specifically allowed and admitted, this opposite party denies all the remaining averments in the complaint. According to this opposite party the above complaint is not legally maintainable. The averments mentioned in the complaint by the complainant are not correct. That the complainant is the proprietor of Faizal Company, that complainant purchased SMT 825NZKAINS model tablet for Rs.47,900/-(Rupees Forty Seven thousand Nine hundred only) from the opposite party, that the opposite party is the authorized dealer of Samsung Company, that the company has hire purchase agreement with BAJAJ FINSERV, amounts are being paid - these statements are not correct and are to be proved by the complainant by documents and witnesses. Although there is warranty period for the above mentioned tablet the opposite party did not repair it or give a new tablet – this statement is not correct. This opposite party contends that if there are damages to the disputed tablet, for the damages this opposite party has no responsibility; if there are damages the complainant should approach Samsung Company. In the above complaint the said company was not impleaded and hence this complaint suffers from non jointer of necessary parties limitation as contended by this opposite party. The statements in the complaint that this opposite party is the authorized dealer of Samsung Company, there is warranty card for the above tablet, this opposite party has recorded in the invoice that there is one year warranty for the tablet are not correct, which are to be proved by the complainant by producing documents, according to opposite party. Also the statements in the complaint that tablet has “touch problem” and “bend on screen problem” are not correct. To the aforesaid tablet there was no problem at the time of purchase of the same by the complainant. It is possible that the tablet suffered damages due to its fall from the hands of the complainant, for which this opposite party is not responsible. For such damages to the tablet the warranty could not apply, as contended by this opposite party. The statement in the complaint that the said tablet has manufacturing defect is not correct. If there is manufacturing defect to the tablet, against Samsung Company legal steps should be taken and for this, this opposite party is not liable and from the part of this opposite party there is deficiency in service is not correct. This opposite party has no liability to give compensation to the complainant. From the part of the opposite party there are no deficiencies. The liability for the replacement of the above tablet is for the Samsung Company. This opposite party is not at all liable and for the purpose of causing difficulties to this opposite party complainant has filed this complaint stating in correct things and hence this complaint does not sustain. The opposite party also contends that the cause of complaint stated in the complaint is not correct and made falsely for the purpose of this case and for getting reliefs demanded by the complainant in this complaint. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief. From the service centre the complainant was informed that the panel of the tablet can be replaced and they are ready to replace the same, but for this suggestion the complainant was not willing and he asked for tablet replacement which is not possible for this opposite party. According to this opposite party from their part no deficiency has occurred in the above complaint, service centre and Samsung Company are not impleaded as opposite parties in the party array. Hence this complaint suffers from the limitation of non jointer of necessary parties.
Hence this opposite party prays to this Hon’ble Forum to accept their contentions and dismiss the complaint, because the above complaint is not lawfully maintainable, there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party, the complainant is not entitled to get from this opposite party and any relief in the above complaint service centre and Samsung Company are not impleaded and hence the complaint suffers from the limitation of non jointer of necessary parties.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and IA 243/2019 to cause production of documents from the opposite parties. As no counter to this IA filed and IA allowed. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked from the side of the complainant.
The following issues arise for consideration by this Forum:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of this opposite party?
- If so, the reliefs and cost which the complainant is entitled for?
Issues 1&2 in detail.
Exts.A1 to A3 are produced by the complainant to support his pleas.Ext.A1 is tax invoice which shows customer’s name, invoice number and date, IMEI No. of the tablet, net bill amount as Rs.47,900/- which proves the purchase of tablet by the complainant from the opposite party on 31/08/2018.Ext.A2 is a copy of transactions details issued by Bajaj Finserv, to C M Enterprises which shows customer name, RRN No., Model, EMI amount as Rs.3,992/- tenure as 12, advance EMIs as 02 total down payment as Rs.7,954/- etc. Ext.A2 also shows loan amount, sales transaction details, bank deposit and address details.Ext.A3 is acknowledgment of service request issued by Samsung customer service which proves that the tablet purchased by the complainant from the opposite party was given for service and repairing to Samsung Company service centre for curing the defects of the tablet and its problems of bend on screen and touch.
We have perused the affidavits and documents produced by both parties before this Forum and understand that the complainant has purchased on 31/08/2018 from the opposite party a brand new tablet for Rs.47,900/-(Rupees Forty Seven thousand Nine hundred only), which has model name as SMT 825NZKAINS which is clear from Ext.A1. It is clear from Ext.A3 that warranty status of the said tablet is “LABOUR ONLY”. We observe that within one month of the date of purchase of the above tablet, it started showing problems of “touch and bend on screen” which is clear from Ext.A3 which proves that the subject tablet was given for repair and servicing of the above problems at Samsung service centre. We also understand that although the opposite party was contacted many times for curing the aforesaid problems of the tablet, the opposite party could not solve the problems and consequently the complainant could not use the tablet which must have caused to him untold mental agony. Although the opposite party alleges that the damages occurred to the complainant’s tablet is because of the possible fall of the tablet from the hands of the complainant, the opposite party has not produced any evidence to prove this allegation.
At the same time we view that eventhough the said tablet is said to be suffering from manufacturing defects, according to the complainant, complainant is not seen to have taken an expert commission to inspect the tablet thoroughly and find out its manufacturing defect. Further, we observe that the complainant has not impleaded the Samsung Company and its service centre as necessary opposite parties in the party array of this case.We also opine that the complainant is not seen to have produced before this Forum the ‘warranty registration card’ to prove that the disputed tablet has warranty at the time the tablet showed problems of touch and bend on screen.Also we opine that due to non working of the above brand new tablet since September 2018, the complainant has suffered a lot of inconvenience and mental agony, which could have been avoided by the opposite party had the opposite party duly informed the manufacturers of the tablet about its non working condition and its problems;if such a step had been taken by the opposite party, the complainant could have been saved from the suffering, inconvenience and mental agony because of the non working condition of the brand new tablet within one month of its purchase.
Thus we observe that both the opposite party and the complainant have committed default.
Hence we decide to partly allow the complaint.
We direct the opposite party to thoroughly repair and service the complainant’s disputed tablet and cure its problems and its defects and make it perfectly working.If it is not possible to do so, we direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant the invoice price of the tablet of Rs.47,900/-(Rupees Forty Seven thousand Nine hundred only). In such a case, complainant is directed to return the tablet purchased from the opposite party on 31/08/2018 and in his possession now to the opposite party immediately. We also direct the opposite party to give Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant due to non working of the brand new tablet within one month of its purchase and towards cost of this proceeding incurred by the complainant. At the same time we cannot allow the prayer of the complainant to get replacement of the defective tablet by a new one of the same brand and model because the complainant has not taken steps to prove the manufacturing defect of the said tablet which could have been possible for the complainant by getting the tablet examined by an Expert Commissioner and he is also not entitled to get 18% interest because he has used the tablet for nearly one month.
This order shall be executed within one month from the date of receipt of this order; otherwise complainant is also entitled to get interest at 9% per annum on the total amount due to him from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this, the 27th day of February 2021.
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member(President I/c)
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 –Tax invoice issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 31/08/2018.
Ext.A2 – Copy of transactions details issued by Bajaj Finserv dated 31/08/2018.
Ext.A3 – Copy of acknowledgment of service request issued by Samsung service centre
dated 19/11/2018
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite party
NIL
Witness examined on the side of complainant
NIL
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
NIL
Cost and compensation for mental agony and inconvenience: Rs.10,000/-
