BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 27^th  DAY OF APRIL 2022

ORDER

SRI H.JANARDHAN, MEMBER:

1.This complaint is filed under section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 seeking  following reliefs.

a) To direct the Opposite parties to issue fresh mobile phone or in the alternative to direct the OPs jointly and severally to repay the sum of Rs.22,098/- along with commercial rate of interest at 21% p.a. from the date of purchase.

b) To direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards the mental shock, physical sufferings and loss of time suffered by the complainant and such other reliefs.  

2. The case of complainant in brief is as under.

The complainant submits that OP-1 being the authorized show room of Samsung Mobile phones and OP-2 is the authorized service centre of Mobile phones and OP-3 is head office, OP-4 is Regional office at Bengaluru. Complainant approached OP-1 for purchase of Samsung Mobile phone and accordingly he purchased mobile phone  model No.SM-A3156+12GB Black for a sum of Rs.20,990/- vide invoice No.SI/CMI/2332 on 19.08.2020.  The 1^st OP insisted to purchase the particular mobile phone shown to the complainant and OP also offered for insurance of the Mobile phone with Samsung Care plus and accordingly complainant paid amount towards insurance and there after OP-1 delivered mobile phone by collecting Rs.22,098/- in all vide delivery order dt. 19.08.2020. In the deliver order, Samsung mobile care insurance, the period of insurance is not mentioned. The OP-1 assured the complainant that warrant period  is 02 years and guarantee for 01 year. After purchase of mobile phone within two months there was problem in the mobile phone and accordingly the complainant approached OP-1 for repair, OP-1 directed to approach OP-2 being service centre for repair of said mobile phone.  Accordingly, complainant approached OP-2, at the point of receiving mobile phone OP-2 checked the mobile phone and mentioned defects in the receipt issued to the complainant.  After a week OP-2 has unnecessarily blamed the complainant as the complainant mis-handled the mobile phone and after several personal communications and arguments got repaired the mobile phone  after 15 to 20 days by collecting repair charges of Rs.360/-. While delivering the mobile phone, the OP-2 had taken back the receipt issued while collected the mobile.

Further after five months of 1^st repair of  said mobile, again  the mobile phone was not working properly and the complainant approached the OP-1, they have directed the complainant to approach OP-2 as they are the authorized service centre to get repaid the mobile phone. OP-2 received mobile phone of the complainant after checking the mobile phone mentioned the defect in the mobile phone through work order no.608 dt.25.06.2021.  In spite of several personal approach to OP-2, they have not properly replied and after keeping the mobile phone for nearly one month directed the complainant to take back the mobile phone get repair through somebody else.  This act of the OP-2 is gross negligence and caused unnecessary mental pressure to the complainant. Further the complainant submits that he got purchased the mobile phone for his personal use and handling the mobile phone with great care and for OLA booking as he is an Auto driver. The complainant alleging that OP-1 & 2 had sold defaulted and inferior product  to the complainant  and OP-2 has not properly repaired mobile phone and further though there was warranty for the said product, but the OP-2 directed the complainant to approach for repair to some one else. As such being aggrieved by the act of the OP the complainant had got issued legal notice dto.21.07.2021, but notice which was issued returned  with shara no such person on  OP-4 and OP1 to 3 duly serviced.  Due to act of the OPs the complainant is not able to use OLA app for his avocation, thus resulted personal loss and hence, complainant had filed this present complaint.

3. After receipt  of notice, OP-1 & 2 did not context the case. Therefore, OP-1 & 2 are placed exparte. However, OP-3 appeared through its  counsel. Notice to OP-4 returned with endorsement  no such person, but it is avoiding acceptance of notice and hence OP-4 is placed exparte. 

4. OP-3 files version and  contends that the complaint is baseless, devoid of merits and  without any cause of action, the complaint is filed with mischievous intention and also  enrich at the cost of OP-3. OP-3 contends that complainant had purchased mobile phone on 19.08.2020 and  the one year warranty expired on 18.08.2021. But complaint filed on 09.09.2021 after expiry of manufacturer warranty period. The complaint is not maintainable due to non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. Further OP-3 contends that complainant repeatedly  alleges that Samsung mobile suffers from defect. The allegation is made when his attempt to get free service is declined by the service centre OP-2 and there is no specific allegations that mobile is unrepairable, but the mobile is repairable.  But repair facilities not utilized by the complainant with ulterior motive. Further OP-3 submits that complainant purchased the Samsung mobile on 19.08.2020 for Rs.20,990-00, but OP-3 is not aware of insurance coverage offered by the dealer on 27.10.2020. OP submits that complainant mobile is picked up  on 27.10.2020  and repaired on 28.10.2020 and delivered on 29.10.2020 and mobile is served free of cost vide job sheet no.4312971557 as per Samsung Care+ service benefit. Contrary after  availing free benefit  as per Samsung care+, Complainant is making false allegations that service centre has collected Rs.350/- and delivered his mobile after 15-20 days and there is no supporting documents for the same.  OP-3 also produced  screenshot of the service job sheet no.4312971557 to evident that OP-3 has provided free service as per Samsung Care+ scheme.  OP further submits that the complainant has visited the service centre 2^nd time  is not with any technical fault, but submitted the mobile in damaged status. Further more complainant fails to disclose reason for approaching the service centre for 2^nd time  and date of visit.  OP-2 has received mobile on 25.06.2021 and issued manual acknowledgement, but latter job sheet no.4327529546 is generated and submitted as on 05.07.2021. The mobile was11 months old. 2^nd visit of complainant  is not due to technical fault and the said mobile was delivered  to OP-2 with broken display and broken back camera glass and the endorsements are available in the temporary service acknowledgement slip issued by OP-2. Further the allegations of the complainant is that OP had given defaulted mobile, which is inferior and not properly repaired is denied as false and said statement  is made by the complainant  with malafied intention to get back or refund or replace of said mobile.  Further all allegations made in the complaint are denied as false and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The Complainant has lead his  affidavit evidence and examined as PW1 and marked nine documents as Exhibit P1 to P9. OP-3 is also filed affidavit evidence, who is examined as RW1 and exhibits R1 to R9 are marked.

6. Both complainant and OPs filed written arguments and heard advocates of complainant and OP-3.

7.  The following points arises for our consideration.

1. Whether complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed  in the complainant?

3. What Order?

8. Our answer to the above points are as under

Point No.1 & 2: Affirmative.

        Point No.3:  As per final order.

                                REASONS

 9. Point No.1 & 2: It is admitted by the complainant that OP-1 is authorized show room of Samsung mobile phone, OP-2 being the authorized service centre and OP-3 is head office and Op-4 is the regional office. Whereas the complainant had approached OP-1 to purchase mobile phone and the complainant had purchased the mobile phone of model no.SM-A3156+12GB black vide invoice No.SI/CMI/2332 on 19.08.2020 and  OPs also    admits the same that the said mobile was purchased by the complainant with the OP-1 and also it is not disputed that the complainant had paid amount of  Rs.22,098/- vide order dt.19.08.2020. The complainant submits that he had obtained the said mobile under insurance and the said insurance is valid and the said phone is under warranty for two years. The complainant has produced tax invoice which is Exhibit P1, wherein it depicts the said mobile was under two years warranty. The complainant was purchased the said mobile on DMI finance. However, the complainant used mobile and after 02 months there was  problem in the mobile and the complainant has approached OP-1, however OP-1 directed the complainant to approach OP-2, he is authorized representative for repair service centre. The complainant approached OP-2 and gave the said mobile for repair and the complainant has not produced work order for the 1^st service obtained by the complainant. The complainant also alleges that the OP had taken repair charges of Rs.350/- and the complainants has not produced any receipt to show that he has given mobile for service under work order and not produced any receipt for the same and also payment made by the complainant for Rs.350/-, but the complainant has failed to produce the payment receipt. More so the complainant had utilized the mobile in question for more than five months after 1^st repair and he noticed that mobile was not working properly and for the 2^nd time the complainant approached OP-2  for repair of the mobile and given the mobile for OP-2 under work order no.608 dt.25.06.2021 as the mobile was not charging, display was broken, back  camera was broken and OP-2 had initiated complaint that the complainant has not used the said mobile in proper way and the complainant was directed that the said mobile will be repaired as soon as possible. But the complainant in the present case submits that  mobile in question was under two years warranty and tax invoice dt.19.08.2020 depicts the same. When the product in question is under warranty, it is duty of the OPs to get repair above mobile phone. But OP-2 has not repaired said mobile phone which is under warranty. Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. More over though the said mobile was insured with DMI finance, DMI finance is no way concerned and relief cannot be sought against DMI finance and  the contention of OPs that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties holds no water. DMI finance is only financer and not service provider.  When OPs fails to repair the mobile phone which is under warranty, is nothing but deficiency. Hence, we deem it fit that OP-1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to repair the mobile phone, which is under warranty within 45 days from the date of this order. More over the complaint has filed present complaint with the assistance of the advocate. Hence, we deem it fit to award Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation which will suffice. When the direction given for repair of the said mobile phone in question, the complainant is not entitled to compensation. In view of the above discussions, the complaint requires to be allowed in part.  We answer point no.1 & 2 accordingly.

10. Point No.3:- In the result, we proceed pass the following

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2.  OP-1 to 4  shall repair the mobile phone  model No.SM-A3156+12GB Black  of the complainant.
3.  OPs shall pay   Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards  cost of the  litigation.
4.  OPs  are further directed to comply this  order within 45 days from the  date of this order. 
5.  Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Commission on this 27^th day of April, 2022).

(RENUKADEVI DESHAPANDE)    (H.JANARDHAN)    (K.S.BILAGI)

    MEMBER                         MEMBER               PRESIDENT

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-

Documents produced by the OP-3 which are as follows:-