C.C. No.124/2023

Malaya Ranjan @ Malaya Routray,

S/o. Ajaya Kumar Routray

P.O./P.S.- Raghunathpur,

Dist.- Jagatsinghpur……… Complainant

                                  (Versus)

1. Proprietor, M/S Guin Communication,

Narayana Chhaka (Raghunathpur),

At/P.O./P.S.- Raghunathpur,

Dist.- Jagatsinghpur.

2. Sidhartha Mohapatra,

ASC, Maa Mobile Service,

Authorized Samsung Customer Service Point,

GSTIN No.21BDDPM2558JIZN,

Bada Bazar, in front of UBI Bank,

Jagatsinghpur.

3. Area Sales Manager,

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

Bhubaneswar.

4. General Manager,

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

(Head Office) in Gurgaon, Sector 43,

Gurgaon, Delhi.…..… Opposite parties

For Complainant………..Mr. D.G. Mohapatra & Associates

For O.P. No.3 & 4………..Mr. S.K. Mohanty & Associates

ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:

                                                                                              JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed the consumer complaint seeking repairing of his mobile phone (Samsung A33, 5G(8+128) IMEI No.356600350319502 and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.1,50,000/- for physical harassment.

            Brief fact of the case is that the complainant purchased a mobile handset of Samsung Company from the opposite party No.1 by paying of Rs.28,499/- on 26.5.2022. The opposite party No.3 through his dealer (O.P. No.1) published the advertisement that the aforesaid mobile supports water and dust resistance (IP.67) and from their quick start guide it is clear that the mobile is water and dust protected. Unfortunately on 19.3.2023 a glass of water fallen on the mobile and immediately the complainant rushed to the office of the opposite party No.1 and as per his instruction, the complainant rushed to the office of the opposite party No.2 by depositing bill and voucher requested him to take necessary steps and the opposite party No.2 with ill intention in order to extract money given a estimate of Rs.20,821.83 paisa including all taxes to the complainant and the complainant due to such act of the opposite party No.1 & 2 harassed as the mobile is within the warranty period and opposite party No.2 told to the complainant that the said mobile received in water damage. 

            The opposite parties have filed their written version stating as under;

            The complainant admitted his knowledge of water logging and submitted documents from his custody admitting the offer of service by the authorized service center on a chargeable basis and on demand also shared an estimate for such service, but being denied availing such paid service the job was closed. The portion of documents with regard to safety information submitted by the complaint discloses the information, which establishes that the manufacturer has taken utmost care to share every relevant information with regard to the product and its efficient usage. Under such circumstances, the allegation of unfair trade practice and misleading advertisement is baseless allegations.

            Since the water has entered due to misuse/mishandling the opposite parties cannot be held responsible when admitted fact that water entered due to pouring of water on the table.

            We have gone through the records and complainant being a consumer has expectation to get service at least free of cost during warranty period may be the phone damaged due to misuse/mishandling/negligence.

            We therefore direct the opposite parties to rectify the defect without service charge but only claim the cost of the part/accessories required for repairing. The opposite parties shall repair the mobile within 10 days after the complainant produce the product maximum within 30 days from the date of receipt the order. With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is disposed of. No cost.

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 26^th July,2024.