SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-35 of C.P.A.-2019, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) against the Ops alleging deficiency-in-service with a prayer for compensation of Rs.70,000/- from the Ops.
2. The case of the complainant, in a nut-shell, is that on 25.2.2023, he purchased one Samsung S22 Ultra Model handset bearing its IMEI No.355476620905110 from OP No.1 with a cost of Rs.1,09,999/- with a warranty of one year. On 15.9.2023, while the complainant was handling the aforesaid handset found some problems, for which he visited the OP No.2-Service Centre and narrated the problems occurred in the handset and showed the set to him and handed over the same. On 16.9.2023, the complainant received a phone call from OP No.2, who demanded Rs.21,000/- for service charge after which they will proceed with the repair work. Thereafter, the complainant visited the OP No.1 & 2 and ventilated that the handset in question covered its warranty period; so the question of payment of Rs.21,000/- for service charge does not arise, but the OP No.1 & 2 did not pay any heed. So, the complainant returned his handset. Finding no other way out, the complainant served legal notice against the Ops requesting them for repairing of the alleged handset within 7 days, but they remained silent in the matter. For the above nature and conduct of the Ops, the complainant not only harassed but also sustained mental agony.
The cause of action arose for filing of this case on 23.9.2023, when the complainant served legal notice against the Ops. When the Ops did not pay any heed to the legal notice, the complainant was constrained to file the case. Hence, this case.
To substantiate his case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record, as mentioned hereunder:-
- Photocopy of Tax invoice.
- Photocopy of Warranty information.
- Photocopy of Legal notice.
3. In the present case, in spite of receipt of notice, the OP No.1 & 2 neither appeared nor filed their written version for which they were set ex parte. Although OP No.3 appeared in this case and filed his written version, but the written version has not been accepted as the same was not filed within the statutory period.
4. The points for determination in this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
(ii) Whether the complainant has any cause of action to file this case?
(iii) Whether the case is maintainable?
(iv) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops?
(v) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?
(vi) To what other relief(s), the complainant is entitled to?
F I N D I N G S
5. First of all, it is to be threshed out as to whether the complainant is a consumer or not, whether the complainant has cause of action to file the case and whether the case is maintainable or not. On a meticulous examination of the complaint petition as well as the documents produced by the complainant, it is found that on 25.2.2023, the complainant had purchased one Samsung S22 Ultra Model handset bearing its IMEI No.355476620905110 from the OP No.1 with a cost of Rs.1,09,999/- and obtained tax invoice vide Annexure-1. In the present case, OP No.1 is the retailer who sold the mobile handset to the complainant, OP No.2 is the authorized service centre of Samsung handset and OP No.3 is the manufacturer of the Samsung Mobile. The complainant found some defect in the alleged handset, for which he lodged complainant before the OP No.2 and handed over the handset in question for its repair and handed over the handset. But, as it appears, the OP No.2 demanded Rs.21,000/- towards the cost of repair, as narrated by the complainant. When the complainant asked OP No.2 that his handset covered under the warranty period and exempted from any service charge, they turned a deaf ear to it for which the complainant returned his handset. It is seen that the Ops remained silent to the legal notice sent by the complainant. Thus, the complainant was constrained to file the case. From the above, it is clearly made out that the complainant is a consumer as required U/s 2(7) of the Act. Consequently, the complainant has cause of action to file the case and the case is maintainable.
6. In order to substantiate his case with regard to deficiency in service, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that on 25.2.2023, the complainant purchased one Samsung S22 Ultra Model handset bearing its IMEI No.355476620905110 from OP No.1 with a cost of Rs.1,09,999/- with a warranty of one year. On 15.9.2023, the complainant found some problems occurred in the handset; so, he visited the OP No.2-Service Centre and narrated the problems occurred in the handset and showed the set to him. On 16.9.2023, the OP No.2 demanded Rs.21,000/- for service charge. Thereafter, the complainant visited the OP No.1 & 2 and ventilated that the handset in question covered its warranty period; so the question of payment of Rs.21,000/- for service charge does not arise, but the OP No.1 & 2 did not pay any heed. Thereafter, the complainant served legal notice against the Ops requesting them for repairing of the alleged handset, but they remained silent. For the above nature and conduct of the Ops, the complainant not only harassed but also sustained mental agony.
7. On the other hand, during course of hearing, learned counsel for OP No.3 submitted that this OP is conscious of the terms of the warranty for service and always assures the best of its service. The complainant has no specific allegation against him. This OP No.3 is the manufacturer of Samsung Mobile Phones and the product is offered for sale after proper testing by their quality control team. The product, as sold to the complainant, is with a one year expressed warranty and assured to render free services during the warranty period. It is specifically submitted that the complainant raised complaint of spot on display and on scanning the technical person observed the OCTA of the handset was damaged and the same was explained to the complainant so also appraised the warranty on the product became void. As the complainant did not agree for the estimate to avail services on a chargeable basis, he returned the handset without repairing. The defect as pointed out in the handset of the complainant is not a manufacturing defect. It is also submitted that the complainant may be directed to produce the mobile in question before the Commission and the same may be sent to an appropriate laboratory for proper analysis about the manufacturing defect within the warranty period and to deposit the fees for the purpose. Further, OP No.3 has submitted that they had offered a 30% discount on the spare and service charges which was also refused by the complainant demanding replacement of the product. Lastly, it is submitted that the complaint of the complainant may be dismissed with cost.
8. From the above submissions and on perusal of the documents filed by both the parties, it is found that undisputedly the complainant had purchased one Samsung handset from the business counter of the OP No.1 vide Annexure-1 and the OP No.2 is the authorized service centre and OP No.3 is the manufacturer in respect of the handset in question. Admittedly, the defects as pointed out in the alleged handset was during the coverage of warranty period. The complainant had been to the door of OP No.2 for service of his defective handset. On examining the handset, OP No.2 had estimated a cost of Rs.23,494.51 paisa towards service charge & spare parts, as it is seen from the estimate chart dated 13.10.2023 produced by OP No.3. On perusal of it, it is found nowhere in the said estimate chart, OP No.2 had offered 30% discount on the spare and service charges. Therefore, the submission in this regard cannot be believable. On the other hand, OP No.3 has not denied that the handset of the complainant was not defective. When the matter is thus, finding on other way out, the complainant served legal notice on the Ops, but, it is found that the Ops remained silent on receipt of the legal notice sent by the complainant and no immediate action has been taken on their behalf in making the handset of the complainant in good condition. They have intentionally ignored the legal notice. At that time, it was the first and foremost responsibility of the OP No.3 to impart any suggestion to the complainant in resolving the issue with a direction to OP No.2 to look into the matter. When the matter has not been resolved, the complainant was forced to send legal notice against them.
9. A legal notice for deficiency in service can be sent by a consumer to the service provider or Company who has provided poor quality of service and sending deficiency in service legal notice is the most primary step where the service provider gets an opportunity to compensate the consumer. The very fact in the present case is that the Ops remained silent to the legal notice of the complainant which itself indicates that the Ops are guilty of selling a defective handset and consequent deficiency in service by their negligent attitude in attending to the complainant on the handset which is brought to its notice. Apart from it, in spite of due service of notice issued by this Commission, the OP No.1 & 2 have neither appeared before this Commission nor filed their version in their defence on the allegation of the complainant, which also otherwise attributes a deficiency in service towards the complainant. Therefore, the Ops are jointly and severally liable for the compensation.
10. On perusal of the case record, it reflects that, in the midst of hearing, OP No.3 filed a memorandum of settlement to which the complainant was agreed and this Commission directed the complainant to surrender the alleged handset to the OP No.2 and the OP No.2 also directed to receive the said handset from the complainant and to return the handset within 15 days after its repairing to the complainant vide order dated 6.5.2024. In view of the above order, the complainant handed over the handset before OP No.2 on 13.5.2024 and after its repair, OP No.2 delivered the said handset to the full satisfaction of the complainant. To that effect, on 10.6.2024, the complainant has also filed a memo to the effect that his handset has been repaired as per his satisfaction. If that be so, why the OP No.2 or OP No.3 failed to extend their hand for repairing of the defective handset of the complainant at the first instance. Had they been taken proper step at the first instance, the matter would have been considered otherwise and the complainant might have refrain from filing of the present case. But, as it appears, the complainant was constrained to file the case after being suffered from mental agony and harassment. From the above discussion, it cannot be said that the Ops are not liable for compensation, as prayed for by the complainant.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
The case of the complainant be and the same is allowed in part on contest against OP No.3 and on ex parte against OP No.1 & 2. The Ops are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony, harassment and litigation cost to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to realize the same as per the prevailing law.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 30th day of July, 2024 under my signature & seal of the Commission.
