Kerala

Idukki

CC/42/2023

Vishnu Cibi - Complainant(s)

Versus

High range home appliances - Opp.Party(s)

28 Feb 2024

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :23/02/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28^th day of February 2024

Present :

              SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                                               PRESIDENT

              SRI.AMPADY K.S.                                                        MEMBER

CC No.42/2023

Between

Complainant                         : Vishnu Siby,

                                                Kareemkuttickal House,

                                                Vallakkadav.

                                                   And

Opposite Parties              :  Highrange Home Appliances,

                                            PVS Tower, 29/250B2-B4,

                                            Kattappana, Pin – 685 508

                                                  (By Adv.Babichen V.George)

O R D E R

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

This Complaint is filed under S.35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 raising the following allegations against opposite party:-

1 . Complainant purchased Samsung Galaxy S22 Plus Mobile Phone from opposite party on 29/08/2022 as per bill No.HYPR/07976 by paying Rs.60,000/-.  He is working in Nandhilath G Mart shop and for his official purpose Smart Phone is necessary.  As his work is done using Smart Phone, he has purchased the present phone.  But after one week from the date of purchase he found serious issues in phone.  While touching the display phone is not responding.  Hence he is facing difficulties in his work.  So he contacted opposite party’s office directly and raised a complaint.  Opposite party directed him to change screen guard of the phone and their technician has changed the same.  Thereafter also he could not use the phone in proper way and the phone was not responding on touching the display.  Again he contacted opposite party and was directed  to contact service centre of Samsung Company.  Hence, he contacted one Bibin Kuruvila, Promoter of Samsung Company but he abstained from giving clear solution.  He is not responding to his phone calls.  So he contacted Zion Communications, Kattappana, Authorised service centre of Samsung Company and gave the phone there on 01/07/2023 for repair.  But they had returned the phone without giving proper solution.  Besides, they informed him to replace software of phone and they had changed the same also.  Moreover, they found complaint in display and directed him to change the display.  Though they agreed to replace the display, they are reluctant to give assurance that no such complaint would occur again within the warranty period which is going to be expired within few months.  They also said that complaints are normal in electronic goods.  Though they said that warranty can be given for 3 more months, due to the irresponsible attitude of opposite party he could not use the phone as opposite party has not rendered service properly.  He purchased the phone by taking loan from Bajaj Finance and remitting monthly instalments.  As he is in debt owing to the above loan he cannot now purchase another phone.  As the phone is not functioning properly it affected his work at his institution and also his salary and other benefits.  These resulted in heavy economic liability and also creates mental agony.  This has happened due to the deficiency in service of opposite party.  Hence he prayed for the following reliefs.

1 . Direct opposite party to take back the defective phone and to give him new phone having complied with prescribed standard and quality.

2 . Allow Rs.2 Lakhs as compensation and litigation costs.

Opposite party filed written version through its Sales Manager on the following lines.

1 . Statement in the unnumbered 1^st paragraph of complaint is only partially true.  It is true that complainant purchased Samsung Galaxy Mobile Phone, S22 Plus from this opposite party.  Other parts of said paragraph regarding the purpose do not have much relevance in this case.

2 . Statements in unnumbered 2^nd paragraph of complaint shall be proved by the complainant.  When complainant approached the office of this opposite party, they rightly directed the complainant to approach the authorised service centre of ‘Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd., as already mentioned in the said paragraph.  Opposite party gave the details of service centre as stated in the said paragraph.  After sales service of ‘Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd; are carried out by their respective service centres.  ‘Zion Communications’ the authorised service centre is bound to answer the above points.  

 

3 . Above case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  This opposite party is only a retail sales outlet of the above said mobile phone and has nothing to do with manufacturing defect if any.  Any sort of repair or service under the warranty period is to be done by the manufacturer through its authorised service centres.  Manufacturer Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd., is bound to redress the grievance of complainant through its duly appointed service network.  Complainant had approached the Zion Communications, Kattappana one of the authorised service centre of the Samsung Electronics.  Hence the manufacturer ‘Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd., and the authorised servicing centre of ‘Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd; are the necessary parties in the instant case for all the allegations throughout the complaint are raised against them and also to be redressed by the above parties.  This opposite party has only a limited role to direct complainant to the respective authorised service centre of ‘Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd., which was already done by this opposite party as stated in the complaint.

4 . Statement in the unnumbered 3^rd paragraph of the complaint is not known to this opposite party and has to be proved by the complainant.

5 . Statement in the 4^th paragraph of the complaint is not known to the opposite party and complainant has to prove the same.  There is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite party at any point of time.  Whenever complainant has approached, they have given the best service.

6 . Statement in the unnumbered 5^th paragraph is not sustainable and hence denied.  This opposite party is not liable to pay any sort of compensation to the complainant in this regard as after sales services are to be carried out by manufacturer through the service centres authorised by them.  Warranty given by the manufacturer is to be only executed by them and this opposite party do not have any role in this respect.

7 . Manufacturer and service centre are the most essential parties in the instant case and they have to be impleaded in the original complaint in the interest of justice.  Complainant will get the benefits of warranty and other privileges as per the terms of warranty, only if they are arrayed as additional opposite parties in this case.  Their address are as follows.

 

 

1 . Manufacturer

M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd., Registered Office, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, 6^th Floor, New Delhi, Pin – 110 001, India

2 . Authorised Servicing Centre

M/s Zion Communications, A.R.Building, Puliyanmala Road, Kattappana – 685 508, Idukki District.

8 . Complainant do not have any cause of action against this opposite party.  Alleged causes are baseless and do not have any legal footing upon this opposite party.  Present complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law to harass and to blackmail the opponent.

9 . Complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as sought in the complaint.  Filing of complaint itself is an experimental one and there are no bonafides in filing the same.  Complainant is not entitled to recover any amount as per complaint from this opposite party.

Hence opposite party prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with the cost of this opposite party.

This complaint was filed in person.  Thereafter complainant has not appeared before this Commission and no representation was also made for him.  On 13/09/2023 complainant was directed to be present without fail for giving evidence on 31/10/2023.  But he has not appeared or was represented.  Thereafter also he was not present on subsequent posting.  Hence 5 documents produced by complainant were marked as Exts.P1 to P5.  Opposite party has not produced any document or tendered oral evidence.  Hence evidence was closed.   Heard counsel for opposite party.  Complainant was not present which shows that he is not interested in prosecuting the matter.  In these circumstances, we are constrained to dispose of this complaint based on the materials available on record.

We have examined the pleadings of both sides and perused documents produced by complainant.  On going through the same, following points arise for consideration:-

1 . Whether this complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

2 . Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

3 . If so, for what reliefs complainant is entitled to?

4 . Order to be passed?

Point No.1

Opposite party raised the contention that manufacturer of the phone as well as service centre are necessary parties in this complaint.   Without impleading those complaint is not sustainable.  Hence the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.  Opposite party stated the address of both manufacturer Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd., and Zion Communications, Kattappana.  Though copy of written version was received by complainant, he has not taken any steps to implead the manufacturer and the authorised service centre.  On going through the averment in the complaint, it is seen that complainant alleges defect on touch display and phone is not responding.  Besides, complainant averred that opposite party directed him to contact authorised service centre of manufacturing company.  It is also averred by him that he entrusted the phone for repair at the authorised service centre.  His averment is that though the service centre agreed to replace the display, he had abstained, from such offer as service centre has not given assurance of no further complaint on replacing display.  Considering the facts of the case, it is seen that manufacturer is a necessary party to this complaint.  Though such contention is raised in the written version filed by opposite party, complainant failed to implead manufacturer and service centre.  Hence, we are of the considered view that this complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.  Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

Point Nos.2 and 3 are considered together

Apart from our findings on Point No.1, on merits also this complaint is unsustainable.  On going through Ext.P3 service bill dated 07/01/2023 of Zion Communications, it is seen that it had remarked as follows:- “need replace SVC OCTA. handset returned”.  Defect description is shown as “intermittent touch not working/touch malfunction”.  Ext.P4 service bill dated 12/01/2023 defect description is shown as “incorrect response of the touch screen/bottom area not working”.  Remarks is shown as “customer not willing for repair. informed customer”.  From Ext.P3 and P4, it is clear that replacement if any; needed would come under warranty.  As per Ext.P4, it is clear that complainant is not willing for repair.  Hence service centre has returned the mobile phone without repair.  Complainant admitted in complaint that he has abstained from repairing the phone as service centre has not given assurance of defect free display to him.   It cannot be said that they should have given assurance for the same especially in the case of electronic goods as they are not manufacturer. If any defect is occurred a purchaser can seek remedy against the concerned person through due process of law.   As the complainant himself stated that he had not repaired the phone for the reason mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of either the opposite party or the service centre mentioned above.  In these circumstances, we cannot hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party or the service centre.  Hence, we are of the concrete view that complainant is not entitled to any relief prayed for.   Hence Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered against the complainant.

Point No.4

In light of above discussions and our findings on point Nos.1 to 3 we are of the view that this complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Hence, we order so.

In the result, complaint is dismissed however, without any order as to costs.

Parties shall take back extra copies without delay.

Pronounced by this Commission on this the  28^th day of February 2024.

                                                                                           Sd/-                                                                              

                                                           SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER                                                                                      

                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                               SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 –Tax Invoice dated 29/09/2022

Ext.P2 – Copy of user’s Manual (1 sheet)

Ext.P3 – Copy of bill dated 07/01/2023 of Zion Communications.

Ext.P4 – Copy of bill dated 12/01/2023 of Zion Communications.

Ext.P5 – Copy of e-mail messages of Samsung Electronic Service to

               complainant.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

 

                                                                                              Forwarded by Order

      

                                                                                        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR