Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/111/2014

K.M.C.Anandan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Mission Legal Advocates. G.Ramesh

26 Sep 2016

ORDER

                           Date of Complaint  : 26.02.2014

                        Date of Order         : 26.09.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

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

 

PRESENT :    THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L.,               :  PRESIDENT                     

                     TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                             :  MEMBER – I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

                                                     

C.C.No. 111/ 2014

THIS MONDAY  26^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

Mr. K.M.C. Anandan,

Flat No.6, Kamakotikripa Apartment,

29/103, North Avenue,

Srinagar Colony,

Saidapet,

Chennai 600 015.                                           .. Complainant.

                                                         - Vs-

1. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, Rep. by its Director-CE, Sales, Planning & Operations, A 25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi, India 110 044.   2. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, Rep. by its General Manager-Region South, No.24, Doctor Radhakrishnan Salai, Near Van Heusen Showroom and opposite Kalyani Hospital, Rajasekaran Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.   3. Poorvika Mobiles Pvt Limited, Rep. by its Senior Manager, Corporate office, No.14/25, Chakrabani Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033.   4. Ascent Enterprise (Samsung Service Centre), Rep. by its Manager, 1st Floor, Old No.426, New No.784, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-35.                                             .. Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant                :   M/s. G.Ramesh & others           

For the opposite parties  1 & 2 :  M/s. V.V.Giridhar & others

For the opposite party-3         :  M/s. S.Muthuselvam & another

For the opposite party-4          :  Exparte.        

 

Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile with a new brand and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony to the complainant. 

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-  

 

The complainant submit that  he purchased Samsung Galaxy Grand Handset Model along with insurance coverage additional charge and Plug-in Bluetooth headset from Poorvika Mobiles and paid a sum of Rs.19,300/- through his credit card.   But the Poorvika issued a bill for Rs.18,600/- and informed that the bill was only for the cost of mobile and the value of insurance and blue tooth headset will not be included in the bill.   

2.     The complainant further contended that the mobile was not functioning properly ever since the time of purchase as it was automatically moving on to various options including dialing calls on its own.    After four days he approached Poorvika on 29^th October 2013.  They advised to approach the service centre.  The service centre informed that it was a minor software problem and handed over the mobile after one hour stating that the problem would be rectified after software up date.   Even after that the problem persisted.  Again on 31.10.2013 the complainant handed over the mobile to Samsung and requested for replacement.   But the service centre  stated that if the mother board is replaced the problem will be solved.  Hence the complainant requested for replacement of a new mobile and refused to accept for repair.   The service centre also issued a job sheet stating that customer not willing for PBA but only replacement and the complainant received the mobile.   He sent several emails to the opposite parties for replacement of the mobile.   On 6^th November 2013 staff of the customer care informed to handover the complete Kit and as such the complainant handed over the mobile to them but they replied that they could not find any problem in the mobile and the mobile is in working condition and to collect the mobile and assured that if any defect occurs within three to four days they will replace the mobile.  But the complainant did not accept for it and sought for replacement of the mobile since there is a technical issue in the product as mentioned in the job sheet i.e. replacement of PBA / mother board which is manufacturing defect.   Hence the complainant filed the above complaint directing the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile with a new one of the same kind and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation.   

Written Version of  opposite parties 1 & 2 are  in briefly as follows:

3.     The opposite parties 1 & 2 denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite parties submit that no such problem was diagnosed on verification of the mobile and therefore the contention of the complainant is without any basis and liable to be rejected.    The opposite parties denied that the complainant approached the service centre on 29.10.2013 and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The fact that no job sheet was produced by the complainant clearly established that the complainant had not approached the service centre.   The complainant approached the service centre on 31.10.2013 and informed them that the mobile is automatically moving to some other option and requested for replacement of the mobile.  However on verification it was found that no defect was found in the mobile.    Once again on 7.11.2013 the complainant approached the service centre with the same problem.    In case any defects the same would be repaired at the service centre and only when the mobile could not be repaired or spare parts could not be changed the complainant is entitled for replacement.   The question of replacement of compensation will not arise as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, since there is no fault in the mobile phone.   By email dated 11.11.2013 it was informed to the complainant that the mobile is functioning normally.  As it was tested by the specialist and therefore the question of replacement will not arise and the complainant was asked to collect the mobile phone as per email dated 9.12.2013.   But the complainant refused to take back the mobile.   Hence the complainant is not entitled for replacement as per the terms of warranty.   Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Written Version of  3^rd  opposite party is  in briefly as follows:

4.     The 3^rd opposite party denies all the allegations contained in the complaint as false and incorrect.   As per dealership they had purchased mobile phone and sell the same through various branches. The complainant purchased Samsung Galaxy mobile with its accessories for a sum of Rs.19,300/-, at the time of purchasing the mobile there was no defect and also made complete check up before sale of the said product.   After being satisfied the complainant purchased the mobile and also utilized several days without any defect.   Therefore they delivered the good quality to the complainant.   When the complainant approached them due to problem in the mobile they advised the complainant to approach the service centre and they received information from the service centre that the problem had been rectified.   So they are not responsible for any manufacturing defect.   If any defect is found in the said mobile the manufacturer of the company alone is liable to compensate, it is the duty of the manufacturer service centre to rectify the defects.  Hence they are arrayed as an unnecessary party hence the complaint may be dismissed as against them as non-joinder of necessary party.   After payment of the product amount warranty card was handed over to the complainant.   Hence deficiency of service is not maintainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.     Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the 4^th opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version.  Hence the 4^th opposite party was set exparte on 20.6.2014.

6.   Complainant has filed her Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A30 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of  opposite parties 1 to 3  filed and no documents were marked on  the side of the  opposite parties 1 to 3. 

7.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1.   Whether the opposite parties have committed  deficiency of

 service as alleged in the complaint?

 

2.   Whether the complainant is  entitled for the relief sought for

in the complaint?  If so to what extent ?

 

8.    POINTS 1 and 2 :

      Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, written version filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 and the proof affidavit filed by complainant and opposite parties 1 to 3 documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A30 filed on the side of the complainant, and considered the arguments of the both side counsels.

9.     Ex.A1 reveals that the complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy mobile for a sum of Rs.18,300/-.  The grievance of the complainant is that the mobile was not functioning properly from the time of purchase and it was automatically moving on to various options including dialing calls on its own.  When he approached the 3^rd opposite party they re-set the phone to default setting and told that it will be set right once set to default settings.  Since the same problem persisted, at the advice of the 3^rd opposite party he handed over the mobile to the authorized service centre i.e. the 4^th opposite party. They suggested that the mother board has been replaced for which the complainant did not accept and requested for replacement of a new mobile. But the 4^th opposite party mentioned in the job sheet that customer not wiling for PBA replacement but only complete replacement.   Since the problem continued in the mobile the complainant contacted the customer care on 2^nd November 2013 and also on 3^rd November 2013 they informed to hand over the mobile.  But  they  informed  that they did not find any problem in the mobile and to take back the mobile but the complainant refused to take back since already they had given a job sheet stating that the PBA has to be replaced.   Hence there is manufacturing defect in the mobile but the opposite parties failed to replace the mobile with a new and caused mental agony to the complainant and filed the above complaint for replacement of a new mobile.

10.    Whereas the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party resisted the complaint stating that the complainant had not approached the service centre on 29.10.2013.  The complainant approached the service centre on 31.10.2013 and informed them that the mobile is automatically moving to some other option and requested for replacement of the mobile.  However on verification it was found that no defect was found in the mobile.    Once again on 7.11.2013 the complainant approached the service centre with the same problem.  They stated that in case any defects found  the same would be repaired at the service centre and only when the mobile could not be repaired or spare parts could not be changed the complainant is entitled for replacement.    The question of replacement of compensation will not arise as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, since there is no fault in the mobile phone.  Again when the complainant handed over the mobile for service by email dated 11.11.2013 it was informed to the complainant that the mobile is functioning normally, as it was tested by the specialist and therefore the question of replacement will not arise and the complainant was asked to collect the mobile phone as per the email dated 9.12.2013.   But the complainant refused to take back the mobile.   Hence the complainant is not entitled for replacement as per the terms of warranty.   Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

11.    The opposite party-3 resisted the complaint by stating that as per dealership they had purchased mobile phone and sell the same through various branches the complainant purchased Samsung Galaxy mobile with its accessories for a sum of Rs.19,300/-.   At the time of purchasing the mobile there was no defect and also made complete check up before sale of the said product.   After being satisfied the complainant purchased the mobile and also utilized several days without any defect.   Therefore they delivered the good quality to the complainant, when the complainant approached them due to problem in the mobile they advised the complainant to approach the service centre and they received information from the service centre that the problem had been rectified.   So they are not responsible for any manufacturing defect.   If any defect is found in the said mobile the manufacturer of the company alone is liable to compensate, it is the duty of the manufacturer service centre to rectify the defects.  Hence they are arrayed as an unnecessary party hence the complaint may be dismissed as against them as non-joinder of necessary party.   After payment of the product amount warranty card was handed over to the complainant.   Hence deficiency of service is not maintainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

12.    It is not denied by the 3^rd opposite party that the mobile was purchased from them and warranty card was also issued to the complainant Ex.A1 also proves the same.    With respect of grievance of the complainant that the mobile phone was not functioning properly within few days from the date purchase it is evidenced through Ex.A4 the job sheet issued by the 4^th opposite party.    The job sheet also reveals   the endorsement made by the 4^th opposite party that customer not wiling for PBA replacement but only for entire complete replacement.   As such it is found that there is problem in the mobile and the PBA ought to be replaced.   Hence the contention of the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile is also acceptable, since within very few days from the date of purchase the said defect occurred.   Whereas the contention of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties that the complainant did not approach the opposite party on 29.10.2013 and no job sheet was produced is not acceptable.    Moreover Ex.A5 the email dated 7.11.2013 transactions from the customer care of the 1^st opposite party also reveals that already they had received a complaint from the complainant regarding the defect in the mobile.    Ex.A6 also proves that from the beginning the complainant only requested for replacement of the mobile.   The endorsement made by the 4^th opposite party in the job sheet i.e. Ex.A7 dated 7.11.2013 also shows that the complainant had handed over the mobile along with accessories and sought for replacement of the mobile.   As such the opposite parties cannot deny that the complainant had not approached them.    The contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 that there is no defect in the mobile and it is in working condition and they informed the complainant through email to take delivery of the product is not acceptable, since the job sheets and the email transactions reveals that there is problem in the mobile and the mother board had to be replaced.    The 3^rd opposite party also informed the complainant that if any problem persisted they agreed to replace the handset.   It also reveals that within few days from the date of purchase the product was defective for replacement of motherboard but the opposite party failed to replace with a new mobile as requested by him.   The contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 in the email transaction dated 11.11.2013 that they will test the product and deliver the handset without carrying repair or carry out the repair if any issue is found is not acceptable, since it is contrary to the job sheet Ex.A4 & Ex.A5 issued by the 4^th opposite party.    

13.    It is admitted by the opposite parties that the product was given for repair on 31.10.2013 & 7.11.2013.   Therefore they cannot deny that there is no defect in the product.   The contentions made in the written version and also the email transitions reveals that the  complainant had not used the mobile and from the beginning it was defective and he handed over the mobile to the 4^th opposite party and now it is under the custody of the 4^th opposite party which was also not denied by the opposite parties 1 & 2.    Whereas the letters sent by the opposite parties 1 & 2 and 4^th opposite party to the complainant to collect the mobile from the 4^th opposite party as it was in working condition is not sustainable, since as contended by the complainant the mobile suffers from manufacturing defect i.e. replacement of PBA/mother board as per Job sheet.  Hence the opposite parties ought to have either replaced with a new mobile phone or refunded the money but they failed to do so.

14.    As discussed above we are of the considered opinion that the mobile was defective within 10 days from the date of purchase and requires mother board replacement as per the job sheet issued by 4^th opposite party.    Moreover it reveals that the mother board is the vital spare parts which covers the entire warranty  and the products suffer from manufacturing defect as contended by the complainant.   Even as per the contention of the opposite party if the spare parts are reparired it cannot be said that they are new one and the grievance of the complainant would continue.   Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for refund of the cost of the mobile is justifiable at this stage.  

15.    Further From the above facts it is clear that due to the complaint mentioned defect in the mobile the complainant had not used the product and the opposite parties also failed to comply the grievance of the complainant for replacement of new mobile even after several complaints through email.  Hence we are of the opinion that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service and caused mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant.   As such the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant towards mental agony.  

16.    Hence  considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of the complaint mentioned mobile as mentioned in the invoice i.e. Ex.A1 a sum of Rs.18,600/- along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.

        In the result the complaint is partly allowed the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the cost of the complaint mentioned mobile as mentioned in the invoice i.e. Ex.A1 a sum  of Rs.18600/- (Rupees eighteen thousand and six hundred only),  to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of  litigation to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above said amounts of (Rs.18,600/- + Rs.5,000/-) will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment. 

                Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 26^th   day of  September   2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 21.10.2013         - Copy of Invoice cum Delivery Challan.

Ex.A2- 21.10.2013 – Copy of customer details cum warranty card.

Ex.A3- 21.10.2013         - Copy of Insurance Policy.

Ex.A4- 31.10.2013         - Copy of service request from Samsung showing fault

                              description.

 

Ex.A5- 1.11.2013  - Copy of Mail from Promod singh requesting to hand over

                              mobile.

 

Ex.A6- 7.11.2013  - Copy of mail from Promod singh for confirming to handover

                               Mobile.

 

Ex.A7- 7.11.2013  - Copy of service request from Samsung while handing over

                               The faulty Mobile to Samsung.

 

Ex.A8- 7.11.2013  - Copy of mail to promod singh intimating that mobile had

                               been handed over.

 

Ex.A9- 8.11.2013  - Copy of follow-up mail to Promod singh requesting

                               replacement.

 

Ex.A10-11.11.2013        - Copy of follow up mail to Samsung requesting replacement.

 

Ex.A11-11.11.2013- Copy of mail from Samsung claiming Mobile was working

                               Fine.

 

Ex.A12- 11.11.2013- Copy of mail to Samsung and copied  to Vikas Koul again

                                Informing that the service confirmed the fault and

                                Requesting for next level of escalation.

 

Ex.A13- 12.11.2013 –Copy of follow-up mail to Samsung and copied to Vikas

                                Koul to provide next level of escalation.

 

Ex.A14- 13.11.2013-  Copy of mail from Samsung again claiming Mobile was

                                Working fine without providing explanation as to why their

                                Service contre themselves confirmed its non-working.

 

Ex.A15- 14.11.2013- Copy of to Samsung again requesting for next level of

                                Escalation.

 

Ex.A16- 14.11.2013- Copy of reply mail from Samsung providing web-link and

                                Not providing specific escalation details.

 

Ex.A17- 14.11.2013 – Copy of mail to Samsung again requesting for next level

                                 Of escalation.

 

Ex.A18- 25.12.2013 – Copy of mail to Poorvika requesting to sort out the issue

                                 Before going for consumer Forum.

 

Ex.A19- 27.11.2013 – Copy of follow-up mail to Poorvika to sort out the issue

                                 With Samsung.

 

Ex.A20- 27.11.2013 – Copy of reply from Poorvika requesting to prove the

                                 problem within three working days.

 

Ex.A21- 28.11.2013- Copy of mail to Poorvika informing fault had already

                                Been proved to Samsung.

 

 

Ex.A22- 9.12.2013 – Copy of mail from Samsung again claiming mobile

                               Was working fine without providing explanation as to why

                                Their service centre themselves its non-working.

 

Ex.A23- 10.12.2013 – Copy of legal notice with RPAD.

 

Ex.A24- 12.12.2013 – Copy of RPAD receipt issued by post office.

 

Ex.A25-  27.12.2013 – Copy of Ack. received from 4 parties.

 

Ex.A26- 27.12.2013 – Copy of email from Samsung informing to

                                 To replace the mobile.

 

Ex.A27- 28.12.2013 -  Copy of email from Senior Executive that the case will be

                                  Looked again.

 

Ex.A28-       -         -  Copy of letter from Samsung informing to receive the

                                  Mail and extending two months warranty.

 

Ex.A29- 2.1.2014     - Copy of letter from the Ascent Enterprise informing to

                                 Receive the phone.

 

Ex.A30- 11.1.2014   - Copy of reply to Samsung and Senior Management

                                 Team, Samsung. 

         

 

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-         

 

        .. Nil ..   

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.