IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 24th day of September 2021.
Filed on 03-12-2018
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. Sholy P.R, B.A.L,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.310/2018
between
Compl ainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Chandrasekharan 1. M/s Cellular World
Vediyathu Veli House Municipal Shopping complex
Mararikkulam North. P.O Cherthala - 688524
Cherthala, Alappuzha (Exparte)
(Adv. Sri. P. Anuroop) 2. M/s Samsung Authorized .
Service Centre, R Logic
Technology Services IP Ltd
Kanoos Tower, Rd 39/1639
Cochin - 682016 (Rep: by its Authorized
Signatory)
(Exparte)
3. M/s Samsung India
Electronics Pvt, Ltd
6th Floor, DLF Centre,
Sansad Marg,New Delhi
Pin-110001
(Rep: by its Authorised
Signatory)
(Adv. Sri. Anaghan for 3rd OP)
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-
On 18/8/ 2018 complainant purchased a Samsung mobile phone as per invoice no. 11290 from the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs.18,990/-. It was manufactured by the 3rd opposite party and it was having a warranty for a period of one year. After 2 months of use it was found that the touch screen is not working properly. Hence complainant approached 2nd opposite party as per the direction of 1st opposite party and entrusted the mobile phone on 22/10/2018 for service.
2. 2nd opposite party after inspecting the mobile phone demanded an amount of Rs. 16,500/- for repairs. Complainant purchased the product from the authorized Samsung dealer believing that it is one of the best mobile phone available in the market. On 2/11/2018 complainant issued lawyers notice to opposite parties 1 and 2. Though they accepted the notice there was no response. There is deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties and since it was not repaired during the warranty period there is unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint is filed for giving a direction to opposite parties 1 and 3 to replace the defective Samsung mobile phone. Complainant is also seeking an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and injury from the opposite parties.
3. Opposite parties 2 and 3 remained exparte. 3rd opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complaint is filed without verifying the facts and exercising reasonable due diligence and therefore wrongly impleaded this opposite party. 3rd opposite party is a well reputed company and is having a very large customer base. The present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed u/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. If some defects are noticed in the mobile hand set that will not automatically within the meaning of manufacturing defect and there may be possibility for that defect due to mishandling, improper handling or any other reasons also which could be rectified. There is no expert opinion available as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act. When the complainant raised the complaint the service engineer inspected the mobile set and found that there was no manufacturing defect but there was liquid logging due to negligence by the complainant. The said hand set had liquid damage which was not covered under warranty terms and conditions. The complainant purchased the Samsung mobile set on 18/8/2018 and it was working fine for two months. Thereafter there were issues in the display and touch screen and it can only due to negligent and misuse.
4. Complainant had lodged a complaint at the service centre of this opposite party and proper service was provided. After the inspection it was informed that mobile set was dead and the handset was liquid logged. Since there was no manufacturing defect it can be repaired only on chargeable basis. Complaint is filed suppressing material facts. Opposite parties had acted as per the terms and conditions of warranty. As per the terms and conditions replacement /refund under liquid/physical damages or mishandling is not allowable. This opposite party is willing to carry out the necessary repairs and replacement of the parts strictly as per the terms and conditions of the warranty manual. Since there is no deficiency of service from the part of this opposite party the complaint may be dismissed.
5. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties as alleged?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the defective mobile phone?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation?
4. Reliefs and costs?
6. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3, A4series, A5 series and A6 series from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 to B4 from the side of 3rd opposite party.
7. Points No.1 to 3:-
For the sake of convenience these points are considered together. PW1 is the complainant in this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 to A3, A4series,A5 series and A6 series. RW1 is the authorized service personal of 3rd opposite party. He stated that the complaint belongs to J8 model of Samsung Company. It is not water proof or water resistant. The phone was produced for repairs at the service centre of 3rd opposite party. The complaint was water logging. If there is water logging, white traces will be present. Ext.B1 to B3 are the photo graphs showing the same. The warranty produced is marked as Ext.B4 and the defect is not coming under warranty coverage.
8. PW1, the complainant on 18/8/2018 purchased Samsung J8 model mobile phone from the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs.18,990/-. According to him the mobile phone was complaint free for about 2 months. Thereafter the touch screen was found not functioning and hence it was entrusted for repairs with the 2nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of 3rd opposite party on 22/10/2018. Ext.A2 is the acknowledgment of service request. After inspection 2nd opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.16,500/-. Ext.A3 is the warranty card of the product. Since the mobile phone was having a warranty of one year provided by 3rd opposite party manufacturer, PW1 was not ready and willing to pay Rs.16,500/- as demanded by 2nd opposite party. The mobile phone was not returned after repairs. On 2/11/2018 Ext.A4 series notices were sent to 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. Ext.A5 series are the postal receipts by which notices were sent and Ext.A6 series are AD cards by which the notices were accepted by 2nd and 3rd opposite party. Since Ext.A4 series notices threatening prosecution did not evoke any response, the complaint was filed for giving a direction to replace the mobile phone and claiming an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation. Opposite parties 1 and 2 remained exparte and the 3rd opposite party filed a version mainly contenting that on inspection it was found that the mobile phone had water logging which is not covered under the warranty. Hence the 2nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre demanded Rs. 16,500/-. Since PW1 was not ready to pay the amount the defect was not cured. According to them though the product is having a warranty of one year water logging, mishandling etc are excluded and hence there is no deficiency of service from their part. Complainant got examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A6 series were marked. A service personal of the 3rd opposite party was examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 to B4 were marked.
9. The fact that PW1 purchased a mobile phone on 18/8/2018 from the shop of 1st opposite party is not in dispute since it is proved from Ext.A1 bill. The mobile became defunct and it was entrusted for repairs at the shop of 2nd opposite party is also not in dispute since it is proved by Ext.A2 Acknowledgment of Service request dated. 22/10/2018. According to PW1 they demanded Rs. 16,500/- for repairs. It was not acceptable to him since the problem started during warranty period. Rw1 who was examined by the 3rd opposite party contented that the phone had water logging and it is not covered under the warranty. However on a reading of the cross examination of RW1 it is seen that he has no idea about the case. He produced Ext.B1 to B3 photo graphs and pointed out that there is liquid log traces clearly visible on mother board on the hand set. However according to him he doesn’t know who took the photographs. All the models of ‘J8’ series on opening will have the same features. There is no proof to show that Ext.B1 to B3 belongs to the phone entrusted by PW1. Though he contended that mobile phone was returned to PW1 he has not seen any document. It is only hearsay knowledge. However he admitted that as per Ext.A2 the mobile phone was collected at the service centre. He frankly admitted that he has no direct knowledge about the case and is giving evidence on the basis of information supplied by others. He produced Ext.B4 warranty information from which it is revealed that warranty shall be void if product has failed under certain conditions/ types (example. Water logging, misuse etc.).
10. As discussed earlier the phone was purchased on 18/8/2018 by paying an amount of Rs.18,990/-. It was entrusted for repairs as per Ext.A2 document on 22/10/2018 ie, after 2 months of purchase. According to PW1 the service centre demanded Rs. 16,500/- for repairs. It is to be remembered that the price of the mobile phone for Rs. 18,990/- and 2nd opposite party demanded Rs. 16,500/- for repairs. Though RW1 contented that the mobile phone was returned to complainant he frankly admitted that he has no direct knowledge about the same. Complainant filed IA. 137/2019 on 5/10/2019 for giving a direction to opposite parties 2 and 3 to produce the mobile phone. Till this date the mobile phone is not seen produced. As discussed earlier though RW1 was examined to prove Ext.B1 to B3 photographs to show that the mobile phone had water logging he himself admitted that the photographs can be of another phone. In effect there is no convincing evidence from the part of opposite parties to show that the mobile phone of PW1 is having water logging.
11. It is true that complainant has not produced any expert evidence to show the defect of the mobile phone. It is to be remembered that as per Ext.A2 it was entrusted to 2nd opposite party for repairs on 22/10/2018 and so far it is not returned. The 3rd opposite party being the manufacturer and the 2nd opposite party being the service centre are the experts to give evidence regarding the mobile phone. But it is seen that RW1 who was examined from the side of 3rd opposite party has no knowledge about the case and he was giving evidence from the information gathered from others. The evidence on record shows that the mobile phone purchased on 18/8/2018 became defective and was entrusted for repairs on 22/10/2018. From Ext.A3 it can be seen that it is having a warranty of one year. According to PW1 the complaint was of touch screen. Though 3rd opposite party contented that there was water logging no convincing evidence is adduced to prove the same. In said circumstances it can be safely concluded that there was deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties 2 and 3 and the complainant is entitled to get the mobile phone repaired free of cost or in the alternative to get replacement. From Ext.A1 it is seen that the mobile phone was purchased on 18/8/2018 for an amount of Rs. 18,990/-. After 2 months ie, on 22/10/2018 it became defective and now we are in 2021, September. Though PW1 spend an amount of Rs.18,990/- he was able to use the mobile phone only for 2 months. Hence he is entitled to get compensation for mental agony. These points are found accordingly.
12. Point No.4:-
In the result complaint is allowed.
A) Opposite parties 2 and 3 are directed to repair the mobile phone free of cost and return the same to PW1. In the alternative they are directed to replace the defective mobile phone with another mobile phone having the same description.
B) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties 2 and 3.
C) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.2000/- as cost.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 24th day of September, 2021.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/- Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Chandrashekaran (Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Cash Bill dated 18/8/2018
Ext.A2 - Acknowledgment of Service Request
Ext.A3 - Warranty card
Ext.A4 series - Lawyers Notices
Ext.A5 series - Postal Receipts
Ext.A5series - AD cards
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Muhammed Anas.N(OP’s Service Personal)
Ext.B1 to B3 - Photographs
Ext.B4 - Warranty Information
//True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
