Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/171/2016

S.Raghuraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.DRB Enterprise By Rep by Manager - Opp.Party(s)

R.Pandian & Saravana Prakash

07 Feb 2019

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  05.10.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  07.02.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY  THE 07^th   DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

 

C.C.NO.171/2016

 

 

Mr.S.Raghuraman,

No.49, Bali Amman Koil Street,

Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049.

                                                                                               …..Complainant

 

 ..Vs..

 

M/s.DRB Enterprises,

Represented  by its Store Manager,

No.AC-141, 1^st Floor, 2^nd Avenue,

Shanthi Colony, Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.

 

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 23.11.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.R.Pandian&Saravana Prakash S

 

Counsel for  Opposite Party                     : M/s.A.Laxmi Raj Rathnam,

                                                                    M.Viswanathan, S.Kumaran,

                                                                    M.Manikandan, B.Raghuraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50, 000/-as damage to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- compensation for mental agony, and to repay a sum of Rs.3,000/- for admissible interest till the date of payment  with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant had visited the store for servicing his Micromax AQ 4501 Smart Phone bearing IMIE No: 911380452171568 on 23^rd April 2016, which was purchased on 14.11.2014 from Amazon through online. The opposite party M/s. DRB Enterprises was an authorized and trusted service centre for Micromax mobiles. The complainant handedover his handset for which the complainant was given with a job sheet No.21 dated 23.04.2016 and was informed that the complainant would be called when the service was done. The complainant was called by the opposite party service centre on 03.05.2016 and returned the mobile after collecting Rs.3,000/- as service charges and was informed that his mobile was serviced for a fault in the circuit board which affected the screen. The  opposite party further informed the complainant that the operating system was also changed. The mobile again developed the same fault within a week and hence he handed over the mobile to the opposite party for mending it on 12.05.2016 duly obtaining a token No.47. At the time of the handing over, the complainant was informed nothing about the fault crept in and the opposite party assured to look after the fault and he was called by the service centre after four days i.e., on 16.05.2016 and the mobile phone was returned without attending the fault. On questioning, the service personnel stated that fault in the mobile was not attended to as the “SEAL” in the mobile was found removed. The mobile was for the first time given for attending the fault with the opposite party service centre on 23.04.2016 and collected it back on 03.05.2016 and again it was handed over to the opposite party service centre on 12.05.2016 as the same fault recurred.While receiving the mobile set for attending the fault on 12.05.2016, the opposite party service personnel verified the set and gave a token bearing No.47 which was an acknowledgement for having received the mobile with seals intact. As such, later development of removal of the seal (or suspected removal of the seal) could only be the handy work of the opposite party service centre for which the complainant cannot be held responsible.  The action of the opposite party in refusing to attend to the fault in the mobile, that too during the warranty period of one month which was orally guaranteed for the replaced model is unethical and bad in law. The above said action amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party is one of the authorized service centers for Micromax mobile phones/its other electronic products. Micromax mobile phone- AQ 4501, bearing IMEI number 911380452171568 was brought on 23^rd April 2016 for servicing to opposite party. When complainant brought the said mobile phone for servicing, the staff of the opposite party clearly informed complainant that the mobile phone he brought for servicing was an out warranty product i.e., the service centre is at its liberty to decide whether to accept the said phone for servicing or not: and if complainant still want to service the said mobile phone he had to pay the cost for servicing and the servicing has no warranty. Complainant agreed for paid service and the said phone was accepted by the opposite party for servicing on 23^rd April 2016. The said phone was serviced and the same was informed to complainant, complainant visited the opposite party on 3^rd May 2016 for collecting the said serviced phone that at the time of receiving the serviced phone, complainant checked and verified whether the said phone was working properly and the required service was done to his satisfaction, complainant paid Rs.3,000/- as service charge. On 12.05.2016, complainant approached the opposite party and informed the opposite party that the said phone developed same fault. Although the staff of the opposite party clearly informed complainant that the servicing has no warranty on 23.04.2016 itself, recalled the same condition on 12.05.2016. Yet complainant requested the opposite party to look into the issue and do the needful to rectify the issue and promised to pay the cost if any incur. In order to solve the issue of a customer and to retain a customer, the opposite party accepted the request and acknowledged only the receipt of the said phone for servicing by giving a token. As per the scheduled servicing priority, when the staff of the opposite party took the phone for servicing, found the service seal on the said phone was tampered and broken, which clearly shows that complainant had broken the service seal either by himself or through some unauthorized persons. Hence the opposite party did not start servicing, but informed complainant, the said facts and also intimated complainant to collect the said phone. Since the said phone was an out warranty product.The opposite party is not legally liable for any physical or mechanical damage caused to the product. The opposite party are at liberty either to accept or not to accept any electronic product for servicing which are out of warranty period.  The said service seal is only to identify whether the product is serviced outside i.e. serviced at any authorized service centres or by any unauthorized persons. Further, it is clear from the notice of the complainant that the staff of the opposite party suspected removal of the seal. Hence opposite party  is not legally liable for any damages to the said phone which service seal is either broken or tampered. The opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.

3. The complainant and the opposite party had come forward with their respective proof affidavit and documents. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A5 were marked on the side of the complainant while no document was produced by the opposite party.

          4. The written arguments of the complainant and the opposite party were filed and the oral arguments of the both were heard.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1

          The opposite party  is an authorized service centre for servicing Micromax Smart Phone.  The complainant’s mobile AQ 4501 Smart Phone bearing IMIE No: 911380452171568 was serviced at the first instance on 23.04.2016  and Rs.3,000/- paid for service done and again on 03.05.2016, the mobile was again given for service to the opposite party  are all admitted. It is not the case of the complainant that the amount for the first service was collected during the warranty period. The contention of the complainant is that the service was done at the cost of Rs.3,000/- on 03.05.2016, but on 12.05.2016 the mobile again developed same fault within few days, and at the time of handing over the mobile the opposite party had given assurance to look after the fault but later returned as the seal in the mobile was removed. It is the handy work of the opposite party and refusing to attend the fault during the orally guaranteed period amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

7. Ex.A1 dated 23.04.2016 is the Customer copy given by the opposite party to the complainant for the receipt of handset with battery for the first service of the complainant’s mobile and the job sheet number was given as No.21.Then on 03.05.2016, the problem in the mobile was noted along with the particulars of the mobile in the customer copy vide Ex.A2, wherein the estimated amount was filled up and signature of both parties are found. On 12.05.2016, as per the complainant, the mobile again developed some fault, the complainant approached opposite party  for the alleged fault, Customer copy with token No.47 was given to the complainant on 12.05.2016  vide Ex.A3.  The complainant would contend that at the time of handing over the opposite party, opposite party  had assured orally to look after the fault and later returned as the seal in the mobile is removed and it is the handy work of the opposite party  and refusing to commit the oral agreement amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

8. The opposite party would contend that the mobile was received for the second time for the alleged default, opposite party had received the mobile for servicing in order to solve the issue of the customer and to retain the customer and therefore issued token number for the receipt only. While servicing on priority basis, staff of the opposite party   found the service seal was tampered and broken hence the opposite party’s staff did not start servicing and intimated the complainant to collect the mobile and the seal is only to identify the product is serviced by unauthorized service centre or serviced outside and it is also not within the warranty period hence opposite party is not legally liable.

 9. On perusal of records, it is noticed that Ex.A1 is the customer copy with Job sheet No.21. It indicates that job was accepted and it was completed by 03.05.2016 and the mobile was handed over and Ex.A2 customer copy was given to complainant. Whereas, Ex.A3 is only the receipt for handing over the mobile phone to opposite party, because it bears only token number and no job sheet is given and hence Ex.A3 is only issued for having accepted the mobile for service. The intimation given to complainant regarding the tampering of seal by the opposite party service centre and the return of mobile is not denied by the complainant.  Now the complainant claims that it is within the oral warranty period from the first service, and also opposite party had given assurance to do the service by giving token number hence denial to do service amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

10. Ex.A4 is the notice issued by the counsel for complainant and it is replied by the opposite party through his counsel regarding their stand. Again it is not the case of the complainant that he has not checked and received the mobile after first service. Hence he would have received the mobile with due satisfaction after the first service. The complainant received the mobile after its service on 03.05.2016 and again it was given for the second service on 12.05.2016, in the meantime the complainant was handling the mobile. The opposite party contends that he had given for the second service upon the oral warranty given by the opposite party, whereas the said oral announce or warranty is denied by the opposite party and opposite party contends that even though there is no warranty for the mobile, it was received as not to loose its customer. Further contends that it was just received without looking into the alleged fault, in view of that token number was alone given in Ex.A3 and no job sheet was recorded. It is pleaded by the complainant that the mobile was given to opposite party  for the second time service within the oral warranty period and the oral warranty  said to be given by the opposite party  is denied by the opposite party  further the oral warranty or assurance alleged to be given by  opposite party has not been substantiated by the complainant . Hence this forum comes to the conclusion that there is no warranty for the mobile for its second time service.

         11.  The opposite party would contend further that they could not find the service seal which was fixed at the time of first service and it was tampered and broken giving presumption that it was either given for service to unauthorized service personal or by himself. The complaint is filed based on the oral warranty. However, no proof for passing consideration and no service was availed by the complainant for the second time and it is already decided by this forum   that there is no coverage of warranty for the second time service. Mere acceptance to do service by opposite party will not help the complainant to get an order against opposite party for deficiency in service. Therefore the complaint fails and there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.

12. POINT NO:2

In view of the discussions held in the earlier point, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 07^th day of February 2019.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 23.04.2016                   Customer copy issued by the opposite party  with

                                                    Job Sheet No.21

 

Ex.A2 dated 03.05.2016                   Bill for Rs.3,000/-(Customer Copy)

Ex.A3 dated 12.05.2016                   Customer copy issued by the opposite party with

                                                    Token No.47

 

Ex.A4 dated 24.06.2016                   Legal Notice by the complainant

Ex.A5 dated 06.07.2016                   Reply notice by the opposite party

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

                                      ….. NIL ……..

 

 

                                               

MEMBER   I                                                               PRESIDENT