D.O.F:16/08/2018
D.O.O:31/08/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.140/2018
Dated this, the 31th day of August 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Hareendran Nair.S
Clerk Cum Typist,
Dhanwanthari Centre,
Civil Station, Kasaragod – 671123
And
1. Proprietor
Profits Mobile Zone,
Land Mark Centre , New Bus Stand
Kasaragod
(Adv: Sadananda Kamath.K)
2. SAMSUNG India Electronics Pvt Ltd
1st Floor,Towers C, Vipul Techsquare,
Golf Cross Road, Sector 43, Gurgaon
Haryana – 122022.
(Adv: C.V. Narayanan)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The complainant is the clerk cum typist of Dhanwanthari Kendra who purchased a Samsung Galaxy C9 Pro hand set for the official use of Planning officer , secretary of Dhanwanthari centre for Rs. 29,900/- from Opposite Party No: 1. The warranty period was for 1 year. The handset stopped functioning after four months of purchase and it is informed to Opposite Party No.1. As per the direction of Opposite Party No. 1 the mobile was handed over to Opposite Party No.1 for repair on 06/08/2018. After examination Opposite Party No. 1 informed the complainant that the damage was caused inside the mobile phone and therefore free service is not available. If complainant is ready to pay Rs 6000/ as repair charge to op1 he will cure the defects. The act of ops caused mental agony and heavy loss to the complainant Hence the complainant is seeking compensation of Rs. 40,900/- from Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 .
2. Opposite Party No.1 filed version through Adv. Sadananda Kamath. According to Opposite Party No. 1complainant is a stranger to Opposite Parties. He has not purchased any material or hired any service from Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 admitted the sale of mobile phone to secretary Dhawanthari centre Kasaragod but not given one year replacement guarantee. Opposite Party No.1 is only a sub dealer of Samsung India Electron Pvt Ltd. The said company has authorized service centre at Kasaragod. The manufacturing company is a necessary party in this case and the present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party, and the complaint has to be dismissed on that ground alone.
3. Opposite Party No. 1and 2 filed version denying all contentions raised by the complainant. In the version Opposite Party No:1 stated that op never agreed for replacement of the product in case of fault. The offer made by Opposite Party is that only repair of free cost duranting warranty period is agreed as the warranty does not cover physical damage or mishandling. Physical damage is treated as outside the warranty. The warranty is void in the following conditions. Opposite Party No. 2 is always ready to provide services as per the conditions of warranty. There was no deficiency of service negligence and unfair trade practice, etc, on the part of Opposite Party No .2 . Hence the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit lieu of chief examination documents marked as Ext A1 to A4 and Ext. C1. On the side of Opposite Parties no oral evidence was adduced, Ext B1 marked. The question raised for consideration are :-
- Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties?
- If so what is the reliefs?
For convenience issue No. 1 and 2 can be discussed together
5. The documents submitted by the complainant are connected with the transaction with Opposite Party No.1. Ext A1 is the quotation given by Profit Mobile Zone, Ext A2 is the invoice, Ext A3 is the procedure in connection to give money to Opposite Party No. 1, Ext A4 is the receipt given by the Profit Mobile Zone. Ext C1 is the report submitted by Assistant Engineer PWD electronic section Kanhangad. As per the report it is stated that no physical damage is seen and the display of the phone is out of order and it may due to low quality product or due to manufacturing defect. He also stated that due to lack of proper tools he could not do effective checking. Complainant in his affidavit stated that the company withdrawn the above said product series due to complaints from the public, as it was defective. Opposite Party No. 2 filed objection to the report and produced warranty card, it is marked as Ext B1.
The contention of the complainant is that the defect of the mobile phone was occurred during the period of warranty and therefore he contacted Opposite Party No. 1, he promised one year warranty and also replacement guaranty. But after arising the complaint Opposite Party No. 1claimed repair charge which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
6. The purchase of the mobile by the complainant is admitted by both Opposite Parties and the mobile phone stopped functioning within four months of purchase. The aforesaid mobile set is purchased for official use and the price paid is Rs. 29,900/- but the complainant could not use it after four months of purchase. Opposite Party No. 1 checked the mobile and claimed charge as the defect of the mobile was not curable. The Ext C1 report states that the defect of the mobile may occurred due to deficiency in quality of the product or manufacturing defect. But both Opposite Parties were silent about this during cross examination. The complainant in his affidavit stated that the company withdrawn the product of that series due to large scale of complaints from public. We are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
7. While considering reliefs replacement is not practicable in this case. So repayment of cost is the remaining remedy.
Therefore complainant is allowed directing Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to repay the price of the mobile phone Rs. 29,900/- with Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Quotation
A2- Tax invoice
A3- The procedure in connection to give money to Opposite Party No. 1.
A4- Receipt Dt: 29/03/2018
B1- Warranty Card
C1- Inspection report
Witness Examined
Pw1- Hareendran Nair. S
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
