Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/87/2020

Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr.B.Jaba Raja, S/o. A.Bhaskar, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.V.V.Giridhar

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :      Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH                           PRESIDENT

                   Thiru R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.87/2020

(Against order in CC.NO.124/2018 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (South)

 

DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF MARCH 2023

 

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager

(Regional Office), No.SL 14 B1                                    M/s. V.V.Giridhar

Express Avenue, Whites Road                                          Counsel for

Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014                                     Appellant /1^st opposite party

 

                                                         Vs.

1.       B. Jeba Raja

          S/o. A. Bhaskar

          Flat No.4, CDS Chitrakoodam                            M/s. K. Ganesan

          No.32A, Cart Track Road                                       Counsel for

          Guindy, Chennai – 600 032                                  1^st Respondent / Complainant

 

2.       M/s. Samsung Service Centre

          (TVS Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,)         

          Rep. by its Manager

No.33, 1^st Floor, Annai Indira Gandhi Road         Served called absent

Velachery, Chennai – 600 042                   2^nd Respondent/2^nd opposite party

 

 

          The 1^st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 1^st opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.5.3.2020 in CC.No.124/2018.

 

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 6.12.2022, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:

 

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT   

1.        This appeal has been filed by the 1^st opposite party as against the order dt.5.3.2020 passed by the District Commission, Chennai (South), in CC.No.124/2018, by allowing the complaint. 

 

2.       For the sake of convenience parties are referred as per ranking before the District Commission.

 

3.       The brief facts of the complaint before the District Commission are as follows:

          The complainant had purchased a Samsung Galaxy Note 5 Smartphone, Gold Colour, Dual Sim, 32GB Storage, 4GB RAM, 5.7 inch Screen and 16.0 Mega Pixel Camera, from Raag E Stores, No.27, Sayee Nagar, for a sum of Rs.45000/-, on 16.9.2015, through Ebay online shopping.  Inspite of careful use, the phone started developing minor repairs in power button and subsequently it was not working.  Hence after contacting the customer service on several occasions, the complainant gave the mobile for service to the 2^nd opposite party on 14.10.2017.  After checking the phone, the 2^nd opposite party stated that cost of repairing the Power Button would be Rs.16,251/-, without any reason.  Since the complainant felt that the cost quoted by the 2^nd opposite party for minor repair of power button seems to be exorbitant, he questioned the 2^nd opposite party, for which there was no response from them.  Hence the complainant raised this issue to CEO desk of Samsung, but till date of filing the complaint, he had not received any reply.  This act of the opposite party clearly shows that 1^st opposite party is indulging in unfair trade practice by giving false promise to sell the product.  The complaint registered by the complainant was also closed, stating that the defect was resolved.  Therefore, visited the 2^nd opposite party several times, and to his shock and surprise it was informed that the repair could not be done.   It is the duty of the opposite parties to claim the reasonable cost and also to state the reason for the failure of features of the phone immediately after purchase of the product.  Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for a direction to the 1^st opposite party to replace the phone or to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50000/-, and the 2^nd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- towards compensation, and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards compensation for monetary loss and to pay cost. 

 

4.       The case of the complainant was resisted by the 1^st opposite party by filing the version as follows:

          The complainant had purchased the mobile in the year 2015, and was using the same over a period of two years without any complaint, and in the month of October 2017 the complainant had given the mobile for the non-functioning of the power button.  After inspection of the mobile phone, it was found that the power button of the mobile phone had got damaged due to improper usage and lot of scratches were found in the mobile phone.  The service centre agreed to provide service to the mobile phone, and further it was informed that the power button etc., had to be replaced, for which an estimation was given for Rs.16,521/- towards the spare parts, as the complainant had purchased the premium mobile phone note five.  The service centre had provided the service and had made the phone in order and informed the complainant to pay the above cost, and collect the mobile.  The complainant on being informed about the cost of the service and spare parts, started sending emails about questioning the cost, and also asking for the discount.  But the opposite party intimated the complainant in clear terms that the cost of service charges and spare parts claimed is correct, and asked the complainant to remit the said sum.   But the complainant refused to receive back the mobile phone from the service centre.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant cannot take undue advantage of his own fault, and he approached the consumer commission with unclean hands.  Thus they sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.       In order to prove the allegations, proof affidavits were filed on either side alongwith documents, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 & B2 on the side of the 1^st opposite party. 

 

6.       After analysing the entire evidence, the District Commission had accepted the case of the complainant, on the ground  that the 1^st opposite party had not stated any reason for claiming such a huge amount for service and spare parts, and had also not proved by filing any supporting documents for the replacement of the spare parts. Accordingly, the District Commission allowed the complaint by directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to replace the mobile or to pay Rs.45000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.10000/-.  Aggrieved over the order impugned, the present appeal is filed by the 1^st opposite party, praying to set aside the order impugned. 

 

7.       Keeping the submissions in mind, we have carefully perused the materials placed on record.

 

8.       It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased the Samsung Galaxy Mobile phone from one Raag e store on 16.9.2015 for a sum of Rs.45000/-.  Thereafter, within a short period of time, from the date of purchase, power button of the mobile phone started giving problem.  Hence he approached the 2^nd opposite party/ service centre to rectify the defect.  But the 2^nd opposite party had demanded a sum of Rs.16,251/- for servicing the phone, without giving any proper explanation for the mal-functioning of the phone.   According to the complainant, after selling the defective phone, asking for a service charge of Rs.16251/-, without disclosing the reason for the defect, is a clear unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

 

9.       The learned counsel for the Appellant/ 1^st opposite party would submit that after purchasing the phone, the complainant had used the phone for two years and one month, without any problem and not even a single complaint was received from the complainant for these 25 months, and in the meantime warranty period expired.  Once the warranty period gets expired, the contract between the customer and the opposite party seizes as per the Consumer Protection Act 2019.  If there is any fault in the unit within a period of one year, the opposite parties are duty bound to repair the same at free of cost, and once the warranty period expires, the contract between the complainant and the manufacturer comes to an end.   Furthermore, alongwith power button certain other spare parts had to be changed.  Therefore, the complainant cannot found fault with the opposite parties in asking Rs.16251/- towards repair charges. Thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

10.     Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for appellant and 1^st Respondent, we are of the considered opinion that once the warranty period expires, there ends the relationship between the customer and the manufacturer.  Therefore, absolutely there is no compulsion for the complainant to approach the opposite parties for repair of the phone.  Though the complainant had stated in the complaint that within a short span of time the mobile phone started to give problem,  the factual aspect of the case shows that he had used the phone for more then two years.  Therefore, the contention of the complainant that the phone had developed problem within a short span of time cannot be accepted.  In this regard, it is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the 1^st opposite party that frequently mobile phone models are getting changed and for the product purchased earlier, the spare parts may not be available in the market, which they have to specially order from the manufacturer and it depends upon the cost of the particular product.  Thus the price quoted by them, after examining the product cannot be found fault.  Therefore, having chosen to repair the phone the complainant had agreed and entrusted the mobile phone for repair,  cannot now go back and say that the cost of the service is too high, which submission cannot be accepted.  But without considering all these aspects properly, the District Commission had allowed the complaint, and that too had ordered for refund of the value of the mobile, which was used for two years, cannot be considered to be a justifiable one.  Therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable, and is liable to be set aside.  Accordingly the appeal deserves to be allowed.

 

11.     Though the 2^nd Respondent/ 2^nd Opposite party remained absent before the District Commission, as well as before this commission, since the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant/ 1^st opposite party/ manufacturer of the phone, there is no point in confirming the order as against the 2^nd opposite party/ service provider.  Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside in toto. 

 

12.     In the result, the appeal is allowed, by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Chennai (South) in CC.No.124/2018 dt.5.3.2020, and the complaint is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost throughout. 

          The Registry is directed to discharge the mandatory deposit, alongwith accrued interest, in favour of the appellant. 

 

 

  R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                         R. SUBBIAH

                      MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT