Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/61/2016

G.Gobinath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Poorvika Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

D.Jawahar

16 May 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  22.04.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  16.05.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

WEDNESDAY THE 16^th   DAY OF MAY 2018

 

C.C.NO.61/2016

 

 

G.Gobinath,

Plot No.10, 7^th Cross,

Lakshmi Nagar Extn.,

Porur, Chennai – 600 116.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.M/s. Samsung India Private Limited,

Rep. by its Director,

A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower,

Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

New Delhi – 110 044.

 

2.M/s. TVS Electronics Limited,

Rep. by its Director,

Ground Floor, Bascon Tower Opp.,

Chennai – 600 034.

 

3.M/s. Poorvika Mobiles Private Limited,

Rep. by its Director,

No.61, Arcot Road, Porur,

Chennai – 600 116.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 09.05.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : D.Jawahar, T.A.Rajagopalan

Counsel for 1st Opposite Party                : M/s.V.V.Giridhar, P.Suresh, K.Senthil

 

Counsel for 2^nd opposite parties              : Ex – parte (on 20.06.2016)

 

Counsel for 3^rd opposite party                       : Mr.Muthuselvam, T.N.Rajeshwaran

                                                                    (Ex-parte on 08.08.2016)

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to refund the cost of the mobile of Rs.37,900/- including  the clear view case and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to direct the 3^rd opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased a Samsung S-6 Mobile on 27.10.2015 from the 3^rd opposite party on payment of Rs.34,900/-. He also purchased a Samsung clear view cover for Rs.3,000/-. The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the mobile as well as the cover. The 2^nd opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party is the authorized dealer of the 1^st opposite party.

2. The complainant purchased the product because of the brand name and when he started using, the screen developed scratches due to clear view case and looked ugly. The 3^rd opposite party promised that the model comes with Gorillia Glass – 4 which means that it is highly resistance to scratches and break free.   The complainant contacted the 3^rd opposite party for redressal of grievance and however he had not properly responded to him. Hence the complainant lodged complaint to the 1^st opposite party and on his direction he contacted the 2^nd opposite party and also handed over the mobile to him. A job sheet dated 26.12.2015 raised by him. The complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party through phone and in person and he gave evasive reply and the 2^nd opposite party finally returned the mobile on 28.01.2016 in the same condition.

3. The 2^nd opposite party has not rectified the defect which caused mental agony to the complainant. Having the complainant invested huge sum for purchase of mobile he could not use the same. Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated 31.01.2016 and there was no reply from them. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to refund the cost of the mobile of Rs.37,900/- including  the clear view case and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to direct the 3^rd opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- with cost of the complaint.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Samsung clear view cover is manufactured   by them and it is not part of the mobile of Samsung S-6.  Hence any foreign materials added to them mobile of the opposite party is not entitled for the warranty of the mobile. As per the terms of the warranty, it is very clear that in case of use external material, the product will not be covered under the warranty.

          5. On 26.12.2015 the complainant approached this opposite party for the scratches in the mobile phone screen. However as a good will gesture this opposite party had agreed to refund the Samsung clear view cover cost and will provide the repair for the mobile free of cost, though as per the terms of the warranty the 1^st opposite party is not liable to provide the repair free of cost. However, the complainant was insisting for the replacement of the entire mobile or refund of the cost of the mobile which is not covered under the terms of the warranty. There was no defect in the mobile phone purchased by the complainant. The scratches only are found in the mobile and the same cannot be construed as a defect.  The complainant was insisting on the replacement of the entire mobile and has refused take back the mobile from the service centre. This opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

          6. The notices were served on the opposite parties 2 & 3 and 2^nd opposite party did not appear for hearing on 20.06.2016 and hence he was set ex-parte and  3^rd opposite party did not filed written version even after expiry of mandate period and hence he was set ex-party on 08.08.2016.

7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

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

8. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a Samsung S-6 Mobile on 27.10.2015 from the 3^rd opposite party on payment of Rs.34,900/- under Ex.A1 invoice and also  purchased a Samsung clear view cover for Rs.3,000/- in Ex.A2 invoice  and the 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the mobile as well as the cover and the 2^nd opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party is the authorized dealer of the 1^st opposite party and  he started using, the screen developed scratches due to clear view case and the complainant contacted the 3^rd opposite party for redressal of  grievance and there was no response to him and hence the complainant lodged complaint to the 1^st opposite party and on his direction he contacted the 2^nd opposite party and also handed over the mobile to him and Ex.A3 job sheet dated 26.12.2015 was raised by him.  

          9. The complainant would contend that due to use of the clear view case manufactured by the 1^st opposite party, the scratches were occurred in the mobile and however the 2^nd opposite party/ authorized service centre has not rectified the same and therefore failure to rectify the scratches and also manufacturing defective clear view case  is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and therefore prays to refund the cost of the mobile and also to pay compensation.

          10. The 1^st opposite party would contend that the scratches occurred in the mobile only by using an clear view case which is only in accessory and accessories are not covered under the warranty and the complainant has not alleged any defect in the mobile and therefore this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.

          11. Admittedly the mobile got scratches by using clear case view which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and sold by the authorized dealer/3^rd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party/service centre could not rectify the   scratches. The counsel for complainant relied on Ex.A6 guidelines of the 1^st opposite party at page 9 please note is extracted as follows:

    Please Note: Normally a Samsung device screen is not covered by warranty for normal “wear and tear” and cosmetic scratches. The above service is offered to our customers as Samsung recognizes there may be customer disappointment after use of clear view cover.

          12. The 2^nd opposite party offered the above service to his customers as the Samsung device screen is not covered for normal wear and tear and cosmetic scratches as the same is not covered by warranty. However, the warranty service is offered to his customers by the 2^nd opposite party by recognizing that there may be customer disappointment after use of clear view cover. The 1^st opposite party itself is not confident or sure of the quality of the materials produced by them to his customers. In the case on hand the controversy arose with regard to deficiency after the use of clear view cover.  Relying upon the above please note in Ex.A6 of guidelines of the 1^st opposite party, we are of the view that the opposite parties 1 & 2 have committed deficiency.

13. However, the 1^st opposite party specifically argued that there is no defect in the mobile and the clear view cover caused scratches not covered under the warranty. The clear view cover manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. As the said cover is having defect and caused damaged to the mobile of the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party was unable to rectify the scratches committed deficiency. Therefore, we hold that the opposite parties 1 & 2 have committed deficiency in service to the complainant.

14. The 3^rd opposite party is only a dealer and he has not manufactured any of the aforesaid items and he only sold the items to the complainant who was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and therefore, we hold that the 3^rd opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.

15. POINT NO:2

          The complainant seeks to refund the amount for the mobile and clear view cover for an amount of Rs.37,900/-. The 1^st opposite party himself admits in his written version that the mobile is with the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant had refused to take delivery of the same. Since, the 2^nd opposite party failed to rectify the same, the complainant rightly refused to take delivery and till date the mobile is with the 2^nd opposite party. Even though the complainant invested huge amount and purchased the mobile, he is unable use the same and in such circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to refund the cost of the mobile and clear view cover to the complainant would meet ends of justice. The complainant unable to use the mobile caused mental agony to him is accepted and for the same it would be reasonable to direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the 3^rd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.    

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.37,900/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand and nine hundred  only) towards the cost of the mobile and clear view cover to the Complainant and also to pay  a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five  thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the 3^rd opposite party is dismissed.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said cost of the mobile & clear view cover and compensation amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 16^th day of May 2018.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated  27.10.2015                  Invoice

Ex.A2 dated 27.10.2015                   Invoice

Ex.A3 dated 26.12.2015                   Ack.of Service Request

Ex.A4 dated 28.01.2016                   Ack, of Service Request

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     Terms & Conditions and  warranty

Ex.A6 dated NIL                     Guidelines issued by 1^st opposite party

Ex.A7 dated 31.01.2016                   Legal Notice along with Postal Receipts

Ex.A8 dated 03.02.2016                   Acknowledgement Cards

Ex.A9 dated 05.02.2016                   Website printout from India Posts

Ex.A10 dated NIL                             Digital Photography of the Mobile instrument

Ex.A11 dated 27.12.2015                 E-mail printout

Ex.A12 dated 17.01.2016                 E-mail printout

Ex.A13 dated 19.01.2016                 E-mail printout

Ex.A14 dated 20.01.2016                 E-mail print out

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                     ….. NIL …..

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT