SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER
The complainant has filed this complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction against the OP to pay an amount of Rs.47953/- as the price of mobile phone and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental and monitory loss for the deficiency in service from the part of opposite party.
Complaint in brief:-
On 29/4/2016, complainant had purchased a Samsung Galaxy Note-5 from opposite party worth Rs.47953/-. At the time of purchase one year warrantee is offered by opposite party. After 2 months of purchase the mobile got damaged beyond any use and complainant entrusted his mobile to opposite party to get it repaired. Thereafter complainant approached OP several times to get the mobile repaired which ended in loss and hardships to complainant. The complainant never get his mobile repaired or replaced with a new one. Hence this complaint.
After filing the complaint commission has sent notice to OP and OP is entered appearance and filed their version accordingly.
Version in brief:-
The OP admitted those facts which are specifically mentioned and other averments are denied. The OP admits the purchase of mobile phone and its warranty period. The OP contended that complainant approached the former after 5 months of purchase with a display broken mobile phone. Moreover, OP is contending that the complainant admitted the fall of mobile on the floor from his hand, when it was asked by OP and OP also made an advice to produce the mobile phone before the authorized service centre. The OP advised complainant to bear the cost of repair as and when required by service centre and which was denied by complainant. Moreover, the OP is only a dealer and service is not providing by op. Furthermore, the OP contended that the complainant had approached service centre as advised by OP. The OP is also contended that the case is bad for non joinder of necessary party. Being a dealer, the OP has no role to function in repairing damaged display and hence there is no deficiency in service from the part of OP and the case is liable to be dismissed.
Due to the rival contention raised by the OP to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues accordingly.
1 . Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite party towards the complaint ?
2. Whether the case is bad for non joinder of parties?
3 Whether the complainant is entitled to get the compensation and cost of the litigation as claimed?
In order to answer the issues, the commission called for the evidence from complainant as well as the opposite party. The complainant produced documents which was marked as Exts.A1 to A4 and MO1 produced. Ext.A1 is the purchase bill issued by OP dtd.29/4/2016. Ext.A2 is the letter given by complainant to OP. Ext.A3 is the lawyer notice and Ext.A4 is the acknowledgment card and MO1(mobile phone) also produced. The complainant adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as PW1. No documents produced by the OP, Op filed proof affidavit and examined as DW1.
Let us have a clear glance into the documents and evidences filed before the Commission to answer the issues.
Issue No.1&2:-
Let us peruse the documents produced by complainant, Ext.A1 is the tax invoice(original bill) issued by OP , which reveals the price and date of purchase. As there is no dispute with regard to the purchase between complainant and OP , it is clearly proved. Ext.A2 is the letter given by complainant to OP, stating about the defect and difficulties arise while he approached OP. But OP advised complainant to approach service centre to get his mobile repaired. During the cross-examination of complainant, he clearly admitted the purchase of phone in the month of April 2016 and damaged in the month of August 2016. Moreover, complainant deposed that the damage to the display of the phone caused due to the fall of mobile into the floor. During the cross examination of OP they clearly stated that it is not their duty to provide service since OP is a dealer only. The complainant had produced the MO1 before the commission. The complainant admits during the cross examination about the damage of his phone as “display damage”. This was not stated before in the complaint or his affidavit and he also admitted that there is no manufacture defect.
The OP contended that they advised complainant to take the phone to Samsung service centre in Kannur which was not done by complainant. Moreover, Op raised a contention of non-joinder of necessary party since the service centre and manufacturer were not impleaded by complainant. The service of OP is confined only to dealership. It is not the duty of OP to provide service as the damage caused to the display of phone. There is no evidence before this commission that the complainant had approached Samsung service centre as advised by OP. Moreover, complainant produced MO1 before the commission and it reveals that the phone is in the custody of complainant itself and fails to prove the averment that the phone is in the custody of OP. From all it is clear that there is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. Hence issues 1&2 answered in favour of opposite party.
Issue No.3:-
Since there is no deficiency in service from the part of OP, complainant is not entitled to get compensation and cost as prayed in the complaint. So issue No.3 is answered in favour of opposite party.
Hence the commission came into a conclusion that complainant is not entitled to get the relief as claimed in the petition, complainant failed to prove the case as stated in the complaint and directed complainant to take back MO1 from the commission.
In the result the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Exts:
A1- purchase bill dtd.29/4/16
A2- letter given by complainant to OP
A3- lawyer notice
A4-Acknowledgment card
MO1- mobile phone
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew. Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
