By: Sri. Mohandasan K., President
Complaint in short is as follows:-
1. The complainant installed Samsung window display worth Rs 4259/- on his mobile phone purchased from the first opposite party on 28/08/2019. The window display became defective within 4 days of purchase and then the complainant approached the first opposite party to replace the same. But they did not heed to his request. The complainant approached the first opposite party since they are being the responsible authorized service center of second opposite party. The first opposite party said to the complainant that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant is from abroad and so warranty or guaranty cannot be provided to display and directed to contact Samsung help line.
2. The complainant contacted Samsung help line and then it was informed that there is no responsibility for the spare parts issuing by Samsung. Then the complainant demanded the first opposite party to deliver the defective parts replaced from the mobile phone, but that also not returned to the complainant. The complainant alleges that the first opposite party instead of replacing with new parts, repaired the old defective parts and installed on the mobile phone. The submission of the complainant is that the complainant being a layman, spare parts worth Rs. 4,259/-that too to use only 4 days cannot be taken as simple matter and the act of the opposite party is really a challenge to the complainant.
3. The first opposite party replaced the parts stating that it is a quality product. The manufactures of the product, the second opposite party producing less quality materials and distributing through the agents and thereby cheating the consumers. The complainant alleges gross deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. Though complainant approached the first opposite party, no redressal was made. Hence the complainant caused lawyer notice to the opposite party on 27/09/2019. But the opposite party sent reply stating utter falsehood. The complainant submit that he sustained huge loss due to the act of the opposite party. The complainant lost many of business due to the defect of the mobile phone. Hence the complainant prays for the cost of the display Rs.4,259/- and also compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
4. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the both opposite parties and on receipt of notice both opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.
5. The first opposite party admitted that the complainant was approached the first opposite party with mobile phone having display broken complaint on 26/08/2019 for repairing. The opposite party delivered the mobile phone on 28/08/2019 after repair work. The first opposite party submitted that the complainant purchased the mobile phone from out of India and so there is no warranty for the repair work to the mobile phone. The first opposite party replaced the defective display with original display and had asked whether the complainant is in need of old display. In case the complainant needs the defective old parts, it will be given back and in case they are not need of defective parts it will be treated as waste and be returned to the company itself. In such situation the consent of the party will also be obtained. The complainant approached the first opposite party second time with the same complaint and then he was directed to contact Samsung customer care and accordingly the complainant contacted the Samsung customer care. Then the customer care directed the first opposite party to repair the mobile phone of the complainant. But the complainant refused the service from the first opposite party.
6. The first opposite party submitted that they are working under Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd and they are bound to act as per terms and conditions of the Samsung India Electronics Pvt. limited. Normally the product of the Samsung India electronic Pvt. Limited company, purchased from out of nation, warranty is not providing. Hence the prayer of the first opposite party is to delete them from the complaint and to implead Samsung India Electronic India Pvt Ltd. as party in the proceedings.
7. The second opposite party also filed version contenting that the complaint is baseless, devoid of merits, without any cause of action and so liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost. The complainant approached the Consumer Forum without clean hands but with hidden facts.
8. The opposite party, is a company, serves its customer and provide a good at the most competitive price and also enable most impeccable after sales service and there is no indent what so ever to deny the same under any circumstances. In case any after sale service / quality issues are brought to notice of the opposite party / service center, as a policy matter, the same is immediately corrected as a matter of priority. If the complainant had approached the service center of the opposite party rightfully with correct fact, prompt service would have been provided. But rather doing so the complainant has instead preferred the present ill motivated complaint and so the complaint disserves dismissal.
9. The complainant alleged manufacturing defect to the product but the defect cannot be determined on the simpliciter submissions of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. The complainant miserably failed to prove the allegations, nor placed any record or analysis test report for the perusal of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and that score also complaint deserves dismissal. The attempt of complainant is to obtain unfair advantage without demonstrating the loss in fact being sustained to the complainant. The attempt of the complainant is an abuse of the process of law, misuse of machinery provided for redressal of genuine grievances and is thus liable to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.
10. The opposite party admitted that complainant had purchased window display manufactured by Samsung for Rs.4,259/- and the same was functionless after 4 days. But the opposite party denied the allegation that the display had no good quality and that when the complainant contacted the Samsung help line, he was informed that the company has no responsibility for the parts disbursed by the Samsung that he was not given his defective display that the service center had not replace the defective display but used the defective one again after doing repair work and the said act amounts cheating etc. The opposite party further denied that the complainant happened to purchase the said display only for the reason that he was made believe by the service center that the product has good quality that the opposite party manufactured low quality display which cannot be used by the common people that hence he is entitled to get compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost Rs.4,259/- etc.
11. The complainant and second opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The first opposite party did not file affidavit. The documents on the side of complaint marked as Ext. A1 to A3. The documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B3. Ext. A1 is copy of lawyer notice issued by Adv. P.M . Mohandas dated 27/09/2019. Ext. A2 is postal acknowledgment. Ext. A3 is copy of tax invoice. Ext B1 is job card. Ext B2 is copy of estimation dated 14/10/2019. Ext. B3 is replay letter dated 16/10/2019.
12. Heard complainant and second opposite party, perused affidavit and documents.
The following points arise for consideration
1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) Relief and cost ?
13. Points 1 and 2
The grievance of the complainant is that he purchased a window display to his Samsung Mobile phone for Rs.4,259/- from the first opposite party. The product became defective again within 4 days of use. Then the complainant approached the first opposite party to replace the same. But the opposite party denied the same and advised to contact the manufacturer the second opposite party. According to the complainant, contacted the second opposite party and then it was told that there is no warranty for the spare parts supplied by the opposite party. The complainant further submit that he demanded replaced window display. But the opposite party could not issue the same. So, the complainant alleges the opposite party instead of replacing with new window display, rectified the defect of the old window display and return back to the complainant stating that window display has been replaced with new one.
14. The issue is that the first opposite party though not filed affidavit, contended in the version that they replaced window display upon the direction of the second opposite party and also directed the complainant during the second time to contact the manufacturer to redress the grievance. So it can be seen that the window display of the complainant mobile phone was defective and it was replaced subsequently, but within 4 days of replacement the same became defective. It is to be noted that the value of the product is Rs.4,259/-. A product worth Rs.4,259/- became defective within 4 days of use cannot be treated as a simple matter as contended by the complainant. The product belongs to the second opposite party. The contention of the second opposite party is that there is no warranty or guaranty for the spare parts cannot be accepted at all. Hence, claim of the complainant appears to be genuine and he is entitled to redress the grievance. The second opposite party is the manufacturer and distributor of window display and is liable to refund the cost of defective spare parts. The first opposite party though not filed affidavit, is not without any responsibility. The complainant purchased the spare parts from the first opposite party. The complainant, definitely might have certain inconvenience and hardships especially is being a business man, who is highly need of mobile phone. So, he is entitled to reasonable amount as compensation also.
15. In the light of above facts and circumstance, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties and so they are liable to compensate the complainant. Hence we allow this compliant as follows;
The first and second opposite parties are directed to refund the cost of Rs.4,259/- of window display to the complainant.
The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties and thereby caused in convenience and hardship to the complainant.
The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the above entire amount shall carry interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of order till date of payment.
Dated this 7th day of February, 2023.
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A3
Ext.A1: Copy of lawyer notice issued by Adv. P.M. Mohandas dated 27/09/2019.
Ext.A2: Postal acknowledgment.
Ext A3: Copy of tax invoice.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B3
Ext.B1: Job card.
Ext.B2: Copy of estimation dated 14/10/2019.
Ext.B3: Replay letter dated 16/10/2019.
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
VPH
