DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF APRIL, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 31.08.2021.
CC/133/2021
Ajay Sankar.M.P, S/o.Satjanan.K, - Complainant
Residing at Kalathil House, Varode PO,
Ottapalam Via, Pin-679 102.
Palakkad District.
(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan)
VS
1. M/s.Savex Technologies Pvt. Ltd., -Opposite Party
Plot No.128, Jhotware Industrial Area,
Jaipur, Rajasthan, Pin-302 016.
2. Samsung Authorized Service Centre,
8/1058, Doha Tower, R.S.Road,
Ottappalam, Palakkad District,
Kerala, Pin-679 101.
(OPs 1 and 2-Ex-parte)
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
6th Floor, DLP Centre, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi, India, Pin-110 001.
(By Adv.Manimangalath Sameer Babu)
Addl.4. The Manager/Manager head,
Amazon India Pvt. Ltd, Bridage Gateway,
8th Floor, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram(W),
Bangolore-560 055, Karnataka.
(OP4-Ex-parte)
ORDER
BY SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant who is a student purchased a mobile phone model Samsung Galaxy M51 for attending his online classes. The 1st opposite party is the authorised seller of the product manufactured and marketed by Samsung. The 2nd opposite party is the authorised person on behalf of Amazon seller service Pvt. Ltd., who is the supplier of the product. The complainant ordered the product on 13.11.2020 through online and it was delivered on 20.11.2020 and he paid Rs.22,499/- for the product.
The complainant was using the phone carefully, but by the end of the March, 2021, the phone developed some problems which prevented uninterrupted online services. The major defects were; Keys were not properly functioning, Automatic scrolling appeared in display, developed constant hanging, mobile restarts automatically, photos and important data got erased without deleting by the complainant, phone gets heated up quickly etc.
The matter was informed to the opposite parties verbally and through messages. As per opposite party’s advice, it was shown to their Authorised service centre. On examination, they found the phone to be defective and changed the motherboard. It was done free of cost. Evenafter repair, the problems like constant hanging, key performance, appearance of automatic scrolling on the screen, screen stuck etc. persisted. Complainant had again approached the service centre for repair.
The complainant appeared for the ACCA exam online and during the examination, the phone developed ‘hanging issue and the complainant could not do the exam properly.’ Complainant’s request for replacement of the mobile phone was rejected by the opposite parties.
The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss of his educational pursuit in time and this loss caused great hardship to him.
So, he approached this Commission for getting the flowing reliefs;
1) To refund Rs.22,499/- being the price of the mobile phone.
2) To pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation for loss of chance for appearance in exams and mental agony.
3) To pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and to pay the cost of the proceedings.
2. After admitting complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Complainant filed IA.No.192/2021 to implead the virtual platform and it was allowed. Addl.OP4 was impleaded in the party array. As the opposite parties 1 to 3 failed to file version, and there was no representation from their part, they were set ex-parte. Later, the 3rd opposite party filed RA No.14/2022 to review the order setting them ex-parte along with version. It was allowed and version taken on file. Even after receiving notice, the 4th opposite party did not appear and they were set ex-parte.
3. The 3rd opposite party in their version admitted the purchase of mobile phone manufactured by them through the 1st opposite party; but denied the remaining allegations in the complaint.
The complainant has not produced any document such as job card, service bills or warranty card to show and prove that he reported any complaint about the mobile phone with the service centre at any point of time. The opposite party states that no service history is available in the official record of the service centre regarding the unit that has been repaired as stated by the complainant. Without furnishing such material facts, this opposite party is unable to furnish more so as to do further as per the warranty terms.
As per the warranty policy, only issues arising within the scope of the warranty alone will be answered by this opposite party and in this case, no such allegation has been raised by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and the complaint has to be dismissed.
4. From the pleadings, the following points arise for consideration.
1) Whether the complainant’s phone suffers from any defect either manufacturing or otherwise?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought?
4) Reliefs if any grantable.
5. Complainant filed IA.No.468/2022 for appointment of an Expert Commissioner to inspect the phone and it was allowed. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. Expert Commissioner’s report is marked as Ext.C1. The 3rd opposite party filed proof affidavit and Exts.B1 to B3 marked from their side.
6. Point No.1
The complainant’s case is that he purchased a mobile phone through the online platform of the 4th opposite party from the 1st opposite party which is manufactured by the 3rd opposite party. He made the purchase on 13.11.2020 and the product was delivered to him on 20.11.2020. By the end of the March, 2021, the phone developed problems. The complainant enumerated some major defects such as keys were not functioning properly, automatic scrolling appeared in display, developed constant hanging, reception was wrong etc. He contended that he approached the service centre as per the advice of the 3rd opposite party; but even after service, the problems like constant hanging, poor key performance etc. persisted.
7. The 3rd opposite party denied the allegations and stated in their affidavit that the complainant approached the service centre on 07.04.2021 which is after four months, from the date of purchase with a complaint ‘No power on’. The said complaint was duly registered vide job card and after inspection, PBA was replaced free of cost as per the warranty terms and condition. Thereafter, no single complaint/issue related to the handset was reported by the complainant.
8. Inorder to prove his contention, the complainant filed an application for the appointment of an expert Commissioner. The Commissioner after inspecting the phone filed report which is marked as Ext.C1.
In Ext.C1, the following observations were made by the Commissioner.
“1. The battery of the mobile phone is found bulged extra ordinarily.
2. Turning on/charging such a mobile phone can be highly dangerous if not lethal.”
9. The Expert Commissioner has reported that he could not inspect the issues pointed out by the complainant because of the above problems. He had stated that “The complaints mentioned can only be verified if the battery of the mobile phone is fit to use. With battery in such a state, the mobile phone can be treated as unsafe for use; even if battery is changed as such occurrences can be repeated after a period of time. The battery of the mobile phone produced by the manufacturer itself has not withstood a period of three years.”
10. Hence, from Ext.C1, it can be concluded that the mobile phone manufactured and sold by the opposite parties suffers from patent defects. Even turning on/charging the mobile phone can be highly dangerous point No.1 is decided in favour of the complainant.
11. Point No.2 to 4
As per the opposite party, the complainant approached them only once with the problem of “No power on” and they replaced the PBA under warranty. This happened within five months of its purchase. Complainant’s contention is that even after the service, the problems in the mobile phone persisted and Ext.C1 proves his case to be correct. The opposite party has not adduced any evidence in contrary to that. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 in manufacturing and selling a defective product. Further, as per Ext.C1, the using of the said mobile phone is highly dangerous. The complainant, who is a student would have definitely faced mental agony due to the inconveniences caused to him in attending his online classes and exams. The opposite parties are bound to compensate the complainant for that.
In the result, the complaint is allowed.
1) We direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to refund Rs.22,499/- being the price of the mobile phone together with interest @ 10% from 29.09.2021.
2) To pay Rs.25,000/- for their unfair trade practice of selling a defective product and deficiency in service in not replacing the defective product with a new one.
3) To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered.
4) To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Copy of the order of the mobile phone.
Ext.A2: copy of the bill paid dated 14.11.2020.
Ext.A3: Copy of the service centre bills or documents if any.
Ext.C1: Report of the Expert Commissioner.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party:
Ext.B1: Copy of Power of attorney valid from 20th October, 2016.
Ext.B2: Copy of the Job card.
Ext.B3: Copy of warranty of the said mobile phone.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : 10,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
