Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/46/2021

C.R.Manunithi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s . Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office, Represented by its Director - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

21 Jun 2023

ORDER

  Date of Complaint Filed:10.02.2021

  Date of Reservation     :14.06.2023

  Date of Order              :21.06.2023

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,            :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,     : MEMBER II

               

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.46/2021

WEDNESDAY,THE21^stDAY OF JUNE 2023

C.R.Manunithi,

No. 23, Renganathan Street,

West Banu Nagar,

Ambattur,

Chennai - 600 053.                                                         .. Complainant.

 

-Vs-

 

1.M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

   Corporate Office,

   Represented by its Director,

   20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre,

   Golf Course Road,

   Sector 43, DLF PH-V,

   Gurgaon, Haryana-122 202.

 

2.M/s. Alpha Communication,

   Represented by its Manager,

   1^st Floor, Diamond Plaza, No.P -995,

   Anna Nagar,

   Chennai - 600 040.

 

3.M/s. Poorvika Mobiles Private Limited,

   Represented by its Manager,

   Old Door No. 240, New Door No.72,

   Ramakrishna Mutt Road,

   Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.                                    .. Opposite Parties.

 

 

* * * * *

 

 

 

Counsel for the Complainant              :    Party in person

 

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party            :   M/s. P. Suresh, V.V. Giridhar,

                                                                 B. Praveen

 

Counsel for 2^{nd& 3rd} Opposite Parties   : Exparte on 25.04.2022

 

 

On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the Complainant in person and the counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rdOpposite Parties, this Commission delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

(i)     The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to refund from the entire amount from the Opposite Parties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with 18% interest from the date of purchase and date of disposal of this consumer complaint and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental torture, stress, pain, hardships from the Opposite Parties and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for issued the manufacturing defective Mobile Phone given by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant and to pay the filing and other miscellaneous expenses of Rs.50,000/- along with costs of this complaint.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.       The Complainant submitted that on 11.06.2020 he had purchased “SAMSUNG A20S”  mobile  phone  from  the 2^nd Opposite Party,  vide Invoice

 

No.FGSI/2MYL/1156 for a sum of Rs.13,700/- including CGST & SGST and the Complainant exchanged SAMSUNG J2, his Old Phone for a sum of Rs.3,700/-. Hence he paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of his credit card to the 3^rd Opposite Party. The said mobile phone was delivered to him by the 2^nd Opposite Party on 11.06.2020 along with warranty period from 12 months from the date of purchase for comprehensive period on product.

2.     The Complainant submitted that to his shock, dismay and surprise on 21.07.2020, the new mobile phone display was not working properly due to screen shows "DISPLAY DEAD" and the same was informed to the Samsung Customer Care, as per their advise he rebooted the mobile on next day, thereafter his mobile came back to function normally. The Microphone, MIC of the new mobile phone was also not working properly from time to time repeatedly. He tried using several mobile networks to check whether any network issues from this new mobile due to Microphone, MIC issues but which clearly shows that it was not of the network problems.

3.     The Complainant submitted that on 23.07.2020 he visited the 2^nd Opposite Party to handover for Service of his New Mobile Phone for the Defects in Camera, Display, Touch and MIC issues. But the 2^nd Opposite Party did not get his new mobile for and the 2^nd Opposite Party did not provide the token or receipt and their service person merely suggested the Complainant to UPDATE the software and change the SIM. It is pertinent to mention that on 04.08.2020, the mobile started malfunctioning another time. All of a sudden the Camera of the new mobile phone was not working and kept showing the error message "CAMERA KEEPS STOPPING" and that the touch screen sensor also not responsive and not working properly.

4.     The Complainant submitted that he again called the Samsung Customer Care toll free number (180057267864) and they suggested him to check if the Camera and Touch is working, in safe mode, when he checked the in safe mode it was still not working the Camera. He did not get any further support from them, hence he emailed the Service Head of Samsung, about his difficulty requesting for replacement of Defective New Mobile. On 06.08.2020, he received an email from Samsung suggesting him to approach the 2^nd Opposite Party.

5.     The Complainant submitted that on 07.08.2020 he visited directly to the 2^nd Opposite Party's Service Center and had a terrible service experience from the 2^nd Opposite Party, as initially they refused to take the defective new mobile for service and only after the Samsung Customer Care people called and informed them to take his defective new mobile for service, the service center people enquired about the status of his mobile, further informed him that they are opening the back door of his mobile by heating process and checking. During which time they were able to see that his mobile backdoor was being handled by three persons from the service center from one after another frequently.

6.     The Complainant submitted that finally they provided him a service acknowledgement for namesake without even mentioning the complete details of the complaints of the defective mobile, which he had told about MIC issue, Display Blackout, Touch issue and Camera issues, but they did only mention the Camera issue.

7.     The Complainant submitted that after signing the acknowledgement of service demand, they informed the Complainant that the camera slot in the back case is broken which was not mentioned while taking the mobile for service or before signing the acknowledgement and he feels that the Authorized Service Center person have damaged his mobile and cheated him to sign the acknowledgement without telling him about it before handle the defective mobile, as the backdoor was without any damage when the mobile was given for service. Thereafter he left the service centre as they were telling him that it was damaged.

8.     The Complainant submitted that again he made a complaint with the Service Head through email explaining the events and requesting for a replacement of his defective mobile phone or refund of the purchase amount. On 13.08.2020, he was assigned with one Mr.Saravanababu.V, Senior Executive, and Customer Experience to handle his issue by Samsung. The concerned person informed him initially that he will handle all the issues and asked to contact him for any updates regarding his mobile issues, he had explained the issues to the said person, who had asked him to send the bill copy and the same was sent to him. The said person had told him that they will send a receipt for 180 days extended warranty in an official mail. When he asked for the service status of his mobile. It was informed that he will update him soon. After that he has been trying to contact the said person, but he was unable to reach and he had also not received any official mail regarding the extended warranty so far. Hence again he made a complaint to service head.   

9.     The Complainant submitted that on 17.08.2020 he had registered a complaint in consumer application. His grievance number for the complaint registered was 2178389, even thereafter after he did not receive any proper response from Samsung. Instead on 27.08.2020 he had received a call from the 2^nd Opposite Party to collect his mobile, when he enquired about whether they had attended his complaints, it was informed to him that they will check and call. But so far he has not received any updates neither directly from the 2^nd Opposite Party nor from Samsung.

10.    The Complainant submitted that he had contacted the concerned persons from the 2^nd Opposite Party and from Samsung, they did not cooperate with him and intentionally neglected him, which would be clear that he was harassed and cheated by all the Opposite Parties.

11.    The Complainant submitted that even thereafter he tried several times to contact the Opposite Parties and sought their help, but the company had not yet resolved his issue and all his honest and legal efforts to get his refund has gone in vain.

12.    The Complainant submitted that he tried to solve the issue in every aspect and he had send a legal notice dated 04.09.2020 to the Opposite Parties and not received any proper response from the Opposite Parties.

13.    The Complainant submitted that the Opposite Parties miserably failed to providing good service despite he had paid the full amount to the Opposite Parties to purchase the mobile phone and thereby caused deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the Opposite Parties.

14.    The Complainant submitted that he had sent several emails to the Opposite Parties and there was no response from the Opposite Parties. He has been waiting several months for the manufacturing defects new mobile issued by the Opposite Parties. The 2^nd Opposite Party's Authorized service center did not service properly and his defective mobile simply lying with the 2^nd Opposite Party's Service Center for more than eight months and there is no use for him in purchase of the new smart phone with huge hard earned money.

15.    The Complainant submitted that he had already waited for a long period of several months from the Opposite Parties and they did not any proper service, proper reply and replace or refund the new product. He has spent his earned hard money a huge amount to purchase the Samsung mobile during Covid-19 Pandemic time and he got very much mental agony, mental stress, torture, pain, hardships and suffered from the Opposite Parties. Thus it is clear that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the Complaint.

II. Written Version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party in brief is as follows:

16.    The 1^st Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant had purchased Samsung A20 mobile phone for Rs.13,700/- but the Complainant is not aware that the offer is in exchange of old Samsung J2 mobile for Rs.3300/ which is the offer given by the dealer and the same is not relevant for the case.

17.    The 1^st Opposite Party submitted that as far as their concern, the phone had warranty of one year and the phone was purchased on 11.6.2020. And the allegation that the mobile phone display was not working since 21.7.2020 and the screen showed display dead, is false. Further it is false to allege that the Complainant visited the show room on 23.07.2020 and that he was directed to update the software and change the sim, as the first approach by the Complainant was on 07.08.2020 on which date it was given to service centre and the service centre record shows that the hand set with sim tray and camera not open. Thereafter the service centre had inspected the phone where they found that the camera was broken.

18.    The 1^st Opposite Party submitted that as per the terms and conditions issued at the time of purchase of the hand set, it is specifically provided that any damage on account of physical damage is not covered under the terms of warranty policy and in Clause 21 of their terms of warranty it is mentioned that" defects arising out of the following are not covered under warranty:(i) physical damage or physical damage caused by the physical impact, (ii) mishandling or misusing.

19.    The 1^st Opposite Party submitted that on 07.08.2020 after 2 months of Purchase, the Complainant approached the service centre and lodged a complaint recording display, mike and network issue and broken display in the said hand set. On inspection by the Service Engineer the SUB-KBA was noted replacement and the same was done as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. At that point of time it was noticed that the camera lens of the said mobile handset was damaged. The Complainant was informed about the damage of the camera and mentioned that the warranty has become void. An estimation of Rs.1906/- was charged for the repair put the Complainant refused to pay the money and visited to replace the handset. The photograph of the mobile phone of the Complainant was filed proving that the defect in the handset is a physical damage which has occurred on account of mishandling on the part of the company.

20.    The 1^st Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant was called upon to collect the mobile phone or to pay necessary repair charges but he had failed to collect the hand set and was not willing to pay even the repair charges.

21.    The 1^st Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant's claim of replacement is not tenable under the law and as per the terms of warranty and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

22.    The 1^st Opposite Party submitted that the compensation claimed by the Complainant are exaggerated and abuse of process of law, when they are not at all liable to pay any compensation by virtue of the aforesaid reason.

23.    The 1^st Opposite Party submitted that as there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile phone the question of providing replacement or compensation did not arise since there is no damages or mental agony and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party and the Complainant had filed the above complaint without any basis.

24.    The 1^st Opposite Party submitted that there is no cause of action arises on the bare reading of the complaint as against them and the Complainant had filed a frivolous complaint. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

III. The Opposite Parties 2^nd& 3^rd were set ex parte:

        Notice was sent to the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties and was duly served to the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties. Despite the notice being served to the Opposite Parties they failed to appear before this Commission either in person or by Advocate on the hearing date and not filed any written version on their side.  Hence the 2^nd& 3^rdOpposite Parties are called absent and set ex-parte. Subsequently, the case was proceeded to be heard on merits.

IV. The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed 7 documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A7. The 1^st Opposite Party had submitted his proof affidavit. On the side of 1^st Opposite Party documents was marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-6.

V. Points for Consideration:-

 

1.      Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

 

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

 

3. To what other relief, the Complainant is entitled to?

 

POINT NO. 1 :-

25.    It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had purchased Samsung A20S mobile phone of the 1^st Opposite Party on 11.06.2020 from the 3^rd Opposite Party with one year warranty. It is also not in dispute that the Complainant had issues in his said mobile and had approached the 2^nd Opposite Party being the Authorised Service centre of the 1^st Opposite Party, for service during the warranty period.

26.    The disputed fact of the Complainant is that the issues he had faced within 1 ½ months from the date of purchase of the new mobile, his grievance was not resolved by the Opposite Parties and having damaged the camera of his mobile on the guise of service claimed that as if the damaged mobile was handed over by him for service. In spite of his mobile been lying with the 2^nd Opposite Parties no steps has been taken to report about the status of his mobile nor for replacement of the defective mobile sold to him.    

27.    The Contentions of the Complainant are that his newly purchased mobile’s display got dead and he had contacted the 1^st Opposite Party’s customer service and on their advise he had rebooted the subject mobile and his mobile started functioning normally. As the Microphone of the subject mobile was also not working properly, on 23.07.2020 he had visited the 2^nd Opposite Party for servicing his mobile and reported about the defects in Camera, Display, touch and MIC issues, but the 2^nd Opposite Party had not received the subject mobile for service and not issued any token or receipt rather he was suggested to UPDATE the software and to change the SIM.

28.    Further contended that on 04.08.2020, the mobile started malfunctioning another time, all of a sudden the Camera of the new mobile phone was not working and kept showing the error message "CAMERA KEEPS STOPPING" and that the touch screen sensor also not responsive and not working properly, hence he again called the Samsung Customer Care toll free number and they suggested him to check if the Camera and Touch is working, in safe mode, when he checked the same in safe mode it was still not working. He did not get any further support from them, hence he emailed the Service Head of Samsung, about his difficulty requesting for replacement of Defective New Mobile and on 06.08.2020, he received an email from Samsung suggesting him to approach the 2^nd Opposite Party.

29.    Further contended that thereafter he had approached the 2^nd Opposite Party on 07.08.2020 for servicing his mobile as per the suggestion received through mail dated 06.08.2020 sent by Service Head of Samsung, initially the 2^nd Opposite Party refused to receive his mobile and only after receiving call from the 1^st Opposite Party’s customer care, his mobile was received and it was informed to him that to identify the defects the mobile has to subjected for heating process and his mobile backdoor was handled by three persons in the service centre. Though he had pointed out the issues of Microphone, Display blackout, touch issue and camera issues, the same were not taken note of and while handing over his mobile there was no issue in the camera lens, but the 2^nd Opposite Party after checking had insisted to sign the service request without mentioning the above said issues pointed out by him in the service request, wherein it was mentioned as “Not charging Auto Off” and in remark column as Camera not open. Only after signing the service request acknowledgement the 2^nd Opposite Party informed him that the camera slot in the back case is broken which was not mentioned while taking the mobile for service or before signing the acknowledgement and the Authorized Service Center person had damaged his mobile and cheated him to sign the acknowledgement without telling him about the same, as the backdoor was without any damage when the mobile was given for service, as they were telling him that it was damaged, he left the service centre.

30.    Further contended that again he made a complaint with the Service Head through email explaining the events and requesting for a replacement of his defective mobile phone or refund of the purchase amount. On 13.08.2020, he was assigned with one Mr.Saravanababu.V, Senior Executive, and Customer Experience to handle his issue by Samsung but said person informed him initially that he will handle all the issues and asked to contact him for any updates regarding his mobile issues, he had explained the issues in detail, who had asked him to send the bill copy and the same was sent to him. The said person had told him that they will send a receipt for 180 days extended warranty in an official mail. When he asked for the service status of his mobile, it was informed that he will update him soon. After that he has been trying to contact the said person, but he was unable to reach and he had also not received any official mail regarding the extended warranty so far.

31.    Further contended that again he made a complaint to service head and on 17.08.2020 he had registered a complaint in consumer application and a grievance number 2178389 was provided to him, even thereafter he did not receive any proper response from Samsung. Instead on 27.08.2020 he had received a call from the 2^nd Opposite Party to collect his mobile, when he enquired about whether they had attended his complaints, it was informed to him that they will check and call. But till date he has not received any updates neither directly from the 2^nd Opposite Party nor from Samsung.

32.    Further contended that he had contacted the concerned persons of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party, they did not cooperate with him and intentionally neglected him, which would be clear that he was harassed and cheated by all the Opposite Parties. Even thereafter he tried several times to contact the Opposite Parties and sought their help, but they had not resolved his issue and all his honest and legal efforts to get his refund has gone in vain.

33.    Further contended that he had send a legal notice dated 04.09.2020 to the Opposite Parties and not received any proper response from the Opposite Parties. As the Opposite Parties miserably failed to provide good service despite he had paid the full amount to the Opposite Parties by purchasing the mobile phone and thereby the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

34.    Further contended that he had sent several emails to the Opposite Parties and there was no response from the Opposite Parties. Though he has been waiting for his mobile, the 2^nd Opposite Party did not service properly and his defective mobile is simply lying with the 2^nd Opposite Party's Service Center for more than eight months and there is no use for him in purchasing of the new smart phone with his hard earned money.

35.    Further contended that as he had already waited for a long period of several months and the Opposite Parties had not done any proper service or given proper reply and had not replaced a new product or refund the purchase cost. He has spent his earned hard money a huge amount to purchase the Samsung mobile during Covid-19 Pandemic time and he got very much mental agony, mental stress, torture, pain, hardships and suffered from the Opposite Parties. Hence the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

36.    The 1^st Opposite Party contended that it is incorrect to allege that the Complainant visited the show room on 23.07.2020 and that he was directed to update the software and change the sim, as the Complainant, only on 07.08.2020 had given his mobile to service centre and the service centre record shows that the hand set with sim tray and camera not open. Thereafter the service centre had inspected the phone where they found that the camera was broken.

37.    Further contended that as per the terms and conditions issued at the time of purchase of the hand set, it is specifically provided that any damage on account of physical damage is not covered under the terms of warranty policy, which is specifically mentioned in Clause 21 that " defects arising out of the following are not covered under warranty:(i) physical damage or physical damage caused by the physical impact, (ii) mishandling or misusing.

38.    Further contended that on 07.08.2020 after 2 months of Purchase, the Complainant approached the service centre and lodged a complaint recording display, mike and network issue and broken display in the said hand set and on inspection by the Service Engineer the SUB-KBA was noted replacement and the same was done as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. At that point of time it was noticed that the camera lens of the said mobile handset was damaged. The Complainant was informed about the damage of the camera and mentioned that the warranty has become void. An estimation of Rs.1906/- was charged for the repair put the Complainant refused to pay the money and visited to replace the handset. The photograph of the mobile phone of the Complainant was filed proving that the defect in the handset is a physical damage which has occurred on account of mishandling on the part of the company.

39.    Further contended that the Complainant was called upon to collect the mobile phone or to pay necessary repair charges but he had failed to collect the hand set and was not willing to pay even the repair charges. Further as there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile phone the question of providing replacement or compensation did not arise since there is no damages or mental agony and there is no deficiency of service on their part  and the Complainant had filed the above complaint without any basis. Hence Complainant's claim of replacement is not tenable under the law and as per the terms of warranty and the compensation claimed by the Complainant are exaggerated and abuse of process of law, when they are not at all liable to pay any compensation by virtue of the aforesaid reason. Further, on the bare reading of the complaint there is no cause of action arises as against them and a frivolous complaint was filed against them.

40.    On discussions made above and on perusal of records, it is evident from Ex.A-1 Tax Invoice dated 11.06.2020 that the Complainant had purchased the subject mobile on 11.06.2020 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the 3^rd Opposite Party on exchange of his old mobile. From Ex.A-3 Mail Communications sent to the 1^st Opposite Party on 04.08.2020 seen in page No.5 of Ex.A-3, it is evident that the Complainant had explained the issues he faced in the subject mobile from 21.07.2020 and the said mail was acknowledged by the 1^st Opposite Party and informed that their relevant team member would contact the Complainant. Further from page No.5 of Ex.A-3 the Complainant had sent a mail stating that he had received a call from their team member that an appointment would be scheduled for him in the service centre but no one had contacted him. It is also evident from the Mail sent on 08.08.2020 to the 1^st Opposite Party as found in page no.6 of Ex.A-3, that the Complainant had followed the advise of the 1^st Opposite Party had visited the Service centre, the 2^nd Opposite Party and the Complainant had reported in detail about the experience he had faced in the hands of the 2^nd Opposite Party. It is also evident from Ex.A-5 the Photograph of the Mobile showing “Camera keeps stopping”. And it is seen in page no.4 of Ex.A-3 that the Complainant had sent a mail to the 1^st Opposite Party stating that his grievance was not resolved though he had reported to them several times and mentioned that because of their dereliction of duty, failure and neglect to rectify his mobile he had suffered loss and incurred expenses and had decided to file a legal complaint. Further from page no.3 of Ex.A-3 Mail dated 30.08.2020 received from the 1^st Opposite Party it was mentioned that the Complainant’s case was already in CEO desk and their relevant team member would contact the Complainant as soon as possible and a reference number 3759965871 was provided to the Complainant. Ex.A-6 is the Legal Notice dated 04.09.2020 issued to the 1^st Opposite Party. From Ex.A-2 Acknowledgement of Service Request dated 07.08.2020 issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party for the service of the subject mobile of the Complainant wherein it was mentioned that the subject mobile was under warranty, Defect description was mentioned as “Not Charging Auto Off” and in remark column it was mentioned as “Camera not open”.

41.    The contentions of the 1^st Opposite Party that on 07.08.2020 after 2 months of Purchase, the Complainant approached the service centre and lodged a complaint recording display, mike and network issue and broken display in the said hand set and on inspection by the Service Engineer the SUB-KBA was noted replacement and the same was done as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, and at that point of time it was noticed that the camera lens of the said mobile handset was damaged and that the Complainant was informed about the damage of the camera and mentioned that the warranty has become void, as the defect in the handset is a physical damage which has occurred on account of mishandling which is not covered under Clause 21 of Warranty terms and conditions and an estimation of Rs.1906/- was charged for the repair but the Complainant refused to pay the money. Exhibits B-1 to B-6 were marked in support of the said contentions by the 1^st Opposite Party would reveal that when the 2^nd Opposite Party had found that the camera lens of the subject mobile was damaged and assessed the said defect as physical damage which was occurred on account of mishandling by the Complainant and hence it is not covered under warranty, is not legally acceptable, as the replacement of a part was claimed to be made on 12.08.2020 as per Ex.B-4, no authenticated proof to show that on 07.08.2020 the Complainant was informed about the broken camera lens and estimated repair charges of Rs.1906/-, as Ex.B-2 Estimation Confirmation was found to be raised on 01.10.2020. Further from Ex.B-6 Photograph of the subject mobile of the Complainant marked by the 1^st Opposite Party and claiming that the said photograph would prove that the Complainant had handed over the subject mobile in a damaged condition, which was said to be found by the 2^nd Opposite Party only during the replacement of a part was made, is not legally acceptable, as one of the camera lens broken could be seen on bare eyes, when that is so, the 2^nd Opposite Party should have recorded the said defect in the Acknowledgement of service request dated 07.08.2020, Ex.A-2, further in Ex.A-3 the Exchange of mail communications made between the Complainant and 1^st Opposite Party on 04.08.2020, 08.08.2020, more particularly on 30.08.2020 the Mail sent by the 1^st Opposite Party nowhere it was mentioned by the 1^st Opposite Party that the subject mobile was handed over in a damaged condition, hence it is clear that the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties only to hide the damage caused to the subject mobile of the Complainant by the 2^nd Opposite Party had taken the shield of Clause 21 of Warranty terms and conditions as if the mobile was handed over with physical damage by the Complainant and also it would be clear only to hide the manufacturing defects exist in the subject mobile sold to the Complainant.  Therefore, the said contentions of the 1^st Opposite Party are not legally sustainable.

42.    Hence this Commission of the considered view that the 1^st Opposite Party as Principal of the 2^nd Opposite Party being the Authorised service centre of the 1^st Opposite Party vicariously liable for the negligent act of the 2^nd Opposite Party and hence the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties had committed deficiency of service and had caused mental agony to the Complainant. The 3^rd Opposite Party being a dealer, has no role in the present complaint, hence the complaint against the 3^rd Opposite Party stands dismissed. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

POINTS NO 2 & 3

43.    As discussed and decided in Point No.1 against the Opposite Parties 1 and 2, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- being the cost price of Samsung A20S Mobile together with interest @9% p.a from 11.06.2020 to till the date of receipt of this order and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony, along with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are directed jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) being the cost price of Samsung A20S Mobile together with interest @9% p.a from 11.06.2020 to till the date of receipt of this order and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service and mental agony, along with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amount of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realisation.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 21^st of June2023.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                  B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                             MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	11.06.2020	Invoice issued by the 3rd Opposite Party
Ex.A2	07.08.2020	Copy of the 2nd Opposite Party’s service acknowledgement request
Ex.A3		Email communications between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties
Ex.A4	04.08.2020	Complainant’s online complaint registered
Ex.A5		Defective Camera Photographs
Ex.A6	04.09.2020	Legal Notice sent by the Complainant to the 1st Opposite Party with acknowledgement
Ex.A7	19.11.2020	Complainant sent notice to the 3rd Opposite Party with postal receipts

 

List of documents filed on the side of the 1^st Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1		Warranty card
Ex.B2	01.10.2020	Estimation confirmation
Ex.B3	10.10.2020	Reply Legal Notice
Ex.B4	01.03.2021	Technical Report
Ex.B5	01.10.2020	Reply Mail
Ex.B6		Photo copy

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                          MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT