IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated, the 26^th day of September, 2024

Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President

  Smt. Bindhu R.  Member

 Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 132/2019 (Filed on 09.08.2019)

O R D E R

Sri. Manulal V.S. President)

This is a complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The case of the complaint is as follows:-

The complainant on 30- 6- 2019 purchased a Samsung A30 Smartphone manufactured by the third opposite party for an amount of ₹ 15,490 (Rupees fifteen thousand four hundred and ninety only) from the first opposite party. Out of the price of the mobile phone, an amount of ₹ 5,500/- (Rupees five thousand five hundred only) is paid by the complainant and the rest of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) is credited by the 4^th opposite party, which they have transferred to the account of the 1^st opposite party.

On the very day of purchase, when the complainant switched on the phone after first charging, as instructed by the first opposite party, there appeared small dark spots on the screen but soon it disappeared and the complainant did not mind the same as it disappeared. In the second week of the purchase, the same small dark spots started to appear again on the display of the phone. When the complainant contacted the first opposite party, they took it lite and sent her back, saying there was nothing wrong with the display. After that, on 24.07.2019, the complainant found the entire display darkened when she tried to unlock the phone. The complainant rushed to the first opposite party and they took the phone to the second opposite party, which is the authorized service center of the 3^rd opposite party.

After two days, the first opposite party informed the complainant that the second opposite party service center had declined to repair the phone in warranty and directed the complainant to go to the second opposite party service center. When the complainant contacted the second opposite party, they informed that the complainant would pay ₹ 7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) to replace the display as they had arrived at the conclusion that it was a case of customer mishandling. According to the complainant, she had never mishandled the phone and the phone is in its best physical condition. It was as it was delivered by the first opposite party. The complainant took back her phone without replacing the display. It is alleged by the complainant that the defect shown on a brand-new device from its purchase itself proves that the device has a manufacturing defect. The finding of the second opposite party is baseless and made only to decline the genuine warranty claim of the complainant and for unlawful gain. It is further alleged in the complaint that the first and third opposite parties have never handed over any terms of warranty to the complainant other than a handbook for using the phone. It was informed by the first opposite party that the phone carried a one-year service and replacement warranty and the invoice issued by them would provide the same all over India and the product being a genuine product manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party. The act of the second opposite party in declining warranty to the complainant's phone and the act of the first opposite party not disclosing the terms of the warranty to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and the attempt of the opposite parties to get unlawfully enriched at the expense of the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant is paying the 4^th opposite party monthly instalments for a device suffering from manufacturing defects. Due to the act of the first and second opposite parties, the complainant is put through much loss, pain, and hardship and the opposite parties are liable to compensate for the same. Hence, this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the first, second and third opposite parties to replace the phone with a new one or in alternative to return ₹ 15,490/- (Rupees fifteen thousand four hundred and ninety only) and to pay ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation, along with ₹ 7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) as the cost of this litigation.

After the admission of the complaint, notice was duly served to the opposite parties. Though the first and second opposite parties received the notice, they did not care to appear before this commission or file version. Hence the first and second opposite parties are declared as ex parte. The 3^rd and 4^th  opposite parties filed separate versions.

Version of the third opposite party is as follows:

The 3^rd opposite party is a well-reputed company with a very large customer base and among other manufacturers, manages electronic appliances and mobile handset business and has its office in Gurgaon.

The complainant purchased a Samsung mobile set on 30.06.2019, having model number SM- A305FZKFINS, Serial number RZ8M60ALSVF, at a price of ₹15,490/- (Rupees fifteen thousand four hundred and ninety only). The complainant also lodged a complaint at the dealer and the third opposite party's service center. A  proper inspection was done and paid service was suggested to the complainant. After inspecting the mobile set the service centre informed that defects in the mobile set occurred due to mishandling and physical damages therefore would be repaired at the cost of ₹ 7,000/- which was denied by the complainant and thus the service call was closed by the service centre. The service center also informed the complainant that the mobile set had no manufacturing defects. The defects that occurred were due to physical damage and mishandling of the same which was not included in the terms and conditions of the warranty of the mobile set. No defects due to mishandling, improper handling or any other reasons and defects that could be rectified for such a situation or condition for replacement or repair of Samsung mobile set are not mentioned in the warranty card. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the third opposite party.

Version of the 4^th opposite party is as follows:

The 4^th opposite party is a financial service limited company, duly incorporated under section 45-1A of the RBI Act 1934 as a systematically important, nonbanking finance company having its registered office in Ahmadabad. The 4^th opposite party is widely acclaimed for its reputation and service. The 4^th opposite party had credited ₹ 10,843/- (Rupees ten thousand eight hundred and forty three only) to the first opposite party account as the complainant availed a loan facility from the 4th opposite party for an amount of ₹ 15,490/- (Rupees fifteen thousand four hundred and ninety only) for purchasing a Samsung Mobile phone. The said loan is to be repaid in 10 monthly installments, an amount of ₹1,549/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred forty nine only) each per month on every second day of the month, out of which these installments of the amount of ₹ 4,647/- (Rupees four thousand six hundred and forty seven only) has been paid by the complainant as advance during the time of purchase. The 4^th opposite party has been providing all services as per the terms of the agreement between the 4^th opposite party and the complainant. Hence, the complainant did not raise any allegation against the 4^th opposite party about their service.

Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibits A1, A2, and MO1.  The report of the Expert Commissioner is marked as Exhibit X1. The third opposite party filed a proof affidavit and marked Exhibit B1 to B4.

We would like to consider the following points on evaluation of the complaint, version, and evidence on record.

1. Is there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what are the reliefs and costs?

Point Numbers 1&2

There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant purchased a Samsung mobile set on 30.06.2019, having model number SM- A305FZKFINS, Serial number RZ8M60AlSVF, at a price of ₹ 15,490/- (Rupees fifteen thousand four hundred and ninety only). Exhibit A1 is the tax invoice issued by the first opposite party to the complainant on 30.06.2019 for an amount of ₹ 15,490/- (Rupees fifteen thousand four hundred and ninety only) for the Samsung Smartphone. It is proved by Exhibit A2  that on 24.07.2019, the complainant entrusted the mobile phone to the second opposite party to carry out a repair with the complaint of display color shade. However, the second opposite party refused to carry out the repair works under warranty, stating that warranty repair can be provided only for functional or manufacturing defects. This is a customer mishandling case that cannot be considered under warranty repair.

The third opposite party, in version as well as in proof affidavit, contended that the defects in the mobile phone occurred due to mishandling and physical damages and therefore, it would be repaired at a cost of ₹ 7,000/- and the same was denied by the complainant. According to the 3^rd opposite party, If some defects are noticed, they will not automatically come within the meaning of manufacturing defect and there may be a possibility for that defect due to mishandling, improper handling or any other reasons, also which could be rectified.

To prove her case the complainant applied to appoint an expert to inspect the mobile phone and ascertain the defects of the mobile phone. Accordingly, this commission appointed Mr. Mathew John, an Assistant Engineer of PWD Electronic Section, Kottayam as an Expert Commissioner. The report of the Expert Commissioner is marked as Exhibit X1. In the X1 report, the Expert Commissioner reported that the Smartphone display shows dark patches due to manufacturing defects and no use of mishandling from the customer is found. According to the expert, this is a defect shown by AMOLED displays wherein dark patches appear on the screen due to dysfunctional pixels of the display. According to the expert commissioner, the phone was only used for a few days, and the dark patches on the display are a manufacturing defect. He further reported that no physical damages were found on the mobile phone. Therefore, it is evident that the opposite parties, one and three, sold a mobile phone that had an inherent manufacturing defect to the complainant. The first and third opposite parties committed unfair trade practices by selling a product with manufacturing defects.

It is pertinent to note that the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 30.06.2019, which became defective on 24.07.2019. The complainant used the mobile phone for hardly one month and it became defective within the warranty period. It may be noted that the third opposite party has no case that the phone became defective after the expiry of the warranty period. Non-providing of the warranty benefits to the complainant amounts to a deficiency in service on the part of the third opposite party. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the first and third opposite parties are committed unfair trade practice to the complainant by selling a defective mobile phone to the complainant and the 3^rd opposite party committed deficiency in service by denying the benefits of the warranty to the complainant. No doubt, due to the deficient and unfair act of the first and third opposite parties, the complainant had to suffer much mental agony and hardships. It is important to note that the mobile phone became defective in July 2019. Therefore, there would be no use in directing the first and third opposite parties to replace the same with a new mobile phone having the same specifications. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that to direct the first and third opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile phone, that is, ₹ 15,490/- (Rupees fifteen thousand four hundred and ninety only), to the complainant with reasonable interest and compensation would meet the ends of justice.

In the result, we allow this complaint and pass the following order.

1. We hereby direct the first and third opposite parties to refund ₹ 15,490/- (Rupees fifteen thousand four hundred and ninety only) to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from 30.06.2019 until realization.
2. We hereby direct the 3^rd opposite party, to pay  ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on their part.
3. We hereby direct the first and third opposite parties to pay ₹ 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant as the cost of this litigation.

The first and third opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till realization.

   Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 26^th day of September, 2024

    Sri. Manulal V.S, President   Sd/-

    Smt. Bindhu R.  Member      Sd/-   

   Sri.K.M.Anto, Member           Sd/-

APPENDIX :

Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :

A1     -        Tax Invoice No. RI/KZY/3517 dated 30.06.2019

A2     -        Acknowledgment of  Service request dated 24.07.2019.

Exhibits from the side of the Opposite Parties :

B1     -        Copy of Power of attorney

B2     -        Copy of physical damage pictures of smartphone

B3     -        Acknowledgment of  Service request dated 24.07.2019.

B4     -        Copy of warranty terms and conditions.

Exhibits from the side of third party:-

X1     -         Report issued by Mathew John, Assistant Engineer, PWD

                    Electronic Section, Kottayam.

Material object from the side of  complainant :

MO1 -         Samsung Galaxy A30 mobile phone

By Order,

   Sd/-

                                                                                        Assistant Registrar