Orissa

Jajapur

CC/92/2018

Santosh Kumar Agrawala - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Samsung Smart Cafe. - Opp.Party(s)

Chitta Ranjan Ojha

20 Nov 2020

ORDER

 IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:          1.Shri Jiban ballav Das, President

                                                                                2. Shri Pitabas Mohanty, Member

                                                                                3. Miss Smita  Ray, Lady Member

                  

                                             Dated the 20TH day of  November,2020.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 92  of 2018.

 

Santosh kumar Agrawal   , S/O Rambilash Agarwal    

 At/P.O. Attabira,Dt. Baragarh    

                                                                                                                              ……....Complainant .                                                                   .                                    

                                                  (Versus)

 

1.M/S Samsung smart Café ,Sri sai complex,Gandhi Nagar,Main Road

   Berhampur,Dt.Ganjam.

2.Proprietor,Krishna service center,At. Santara,Nahaka,P.O.Jajpur Road

Dt.Jajpur.

3. Manager,Samsung India, Electronics Pvt.Ltd, 20^th to 24^th  floor,Two Horizon

Center Golf course Road,Sector-43,D.I.F P.H.V,Gurugaon,Haryana

 

                                                                                                                              ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                              

For the Complainant:                             Sri P.K.Das, Sri C.Ranjan Ojha,Advocates

For the Opp.Parties :  2 and 3           Sri Subhendra Ku.Mohanty,Sri P.K.Daspattnaik and associates

For the Opp.parties No.1                          None.                                    

                                                                                                     Date of order:    20 . 11. 2020.

SHRI JIBAN BALLAV DAS, PRESIDENT  .

The petitioner has filed the present dispute alleging deficiency in service on the part o the O.ps.

            As per complaint petition the petitioner purchased a mobile set bearing Model Samsung  T-116  from O.P.1 paying  consideration amount of Rs.9,200/-  on dt.14.09.15. That on 8.5.18 the mobile set WAS  found  defective and switched off .  Hence , on 9.5 18 the petitioner went to O.P.no.2 and requested to repair the defective mobile set and op.2 received the mobile set in presence of petitioner  and opined  that the battery has already been damaged and the cost of which Rs 2500/- .Thereafter the O.P.no.2 assured  the petitioner to   repair the mobile set within one month  and just after completion of one month the petitioner  went to  O.P .no.2  and came to know  that the battery is ok but  the mother board  of mobile  set has been damaged. For which the petitioner has to pay Rs.4000/-   against  the mother board and Rs 2500 for battery and total of Rs 6,500/- to repair the mobile set.  That it is pertinent to  mention here that  due to negligence of O.P no.2 the  mobile set has e already burst and scratched and the said set is not in such condition  when  the O.P. no.2 had  received the same from the petitioner. Due to negligence of O.Pno.2  the mobile set was burst and scratched and  demanded  of Rs 6,500/  which is illegal and arbitrary .The real  cost of battery is Rs 1600 only and op.2 is demanding Rs2,500 from the petitioner .  Similarly when the real cost of mother board is Rs.3,000/- but the op.2 demanded  Rs.4,000/-  from the petitioner. That under such circumstance     due to negligence  of  O.P.no.2  the complainant has suffered irreparable loss . Accordingly the  petitioner  filed the  dispute before this commission with the prayer  to direct the o.p2 and 3  to  replace the  new one  as there is  manufacturing defect of mobile set along with O.P.no. 2 and 3 are pay  Rs. 20,000/-  as compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.

            After receipt of  notices the O.Pno.2 and 3  appeared through the learned  advocate  and subsequently  filed the written version taking the following stands .

1There is no cause of action to bring the complaint petition . 

It is submitted that on 14.09.15 the petitioner purchased the mobile set from O.P.no.1 who is stated to be a dealer located  at  Berhampur , Dist. Ganjam  

            The petitioner in this case apprehended  manufacturing  defect in the mobile phone   of Samsung make  without support of any  materials on record or report of experts . The complainant is not even based on any technical  advice  and  further same does not fulfill the  ingredients of  section -13  and 14 of C.P. Act to claim reliefs  against the O.P.

            That it is also submitted by the o.ps  that all the mobile phone of Samsung make  are provide  with one year manufacturer’s warranty and O.Ps  assured   to render free  services during warranty in force by replacing minor  parts and never assured  replacement of the entire product. Further it is agreed in the warranty that the warranty will be void in case of physical damage caused to the mobile by mishandling .The warranty  conditions are in writing  and this is not a case of silence in  terms  of contract .Admittedly the alleged mobile was purchased  on 14 .09.15 , and one year warranty on its  expired on 14.09.16 .  Admittedly undisputedly no complaint was detected till 8.5.18,  that is after long expiry of warranty period  . This is a case of where  in no complaint was filed or pending during warranty period and the complaint is not maintainable .Alleged complaint is one governed by the term of contact for which the  relief claimed beyond said term is not maintainable .

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the learned advocate for both the sides. And after perusal of the record and documents in details it is undisputed  fact that the alleged mobile set was purchased on 14 .09.15 from Samsung smart café situation at Berhampur vide invoice no. 3838  paying   consideration amount of Rs9,200/- . The mobile set was provide one year of warranty from the date of purchase from the side of the manufacturer . It is also undisputed fact  that there is no complaint against the alleged mobile during the period of warranty which expired on 13.09.16 . Hence it is our considered view that there is no privity of contract between the manufacturer  and  the petitioner after expiry of warranty period .Hence the dispute is liable to be dismissed.

            O R D E R

     In the result the  dispute is dismissed against the O.P .  No cost.

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 20TH  day of  November,2020. under my hand and seal of the Commission.