By Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The Complainant purchased a Samsung mobile phone for Rs.7,400/- from the first Opposite Party on 28.11.2017. But, within a short period, it shows complaint to the display board. When the Complainant approached the first Opposite Party, he obtained the phone and agreed to repair it through second Opposite Party, the authorised service centre. One week thereafter, when the Complainant approached the first Opposite Party, he has given the acknowledgment of service request and requested to contact the second Opposite Party. When the Complainant contacted, second Opposite Party demanded Rs.5,200/- for repair. The Complainant reminded him with regard to warranty and requested to repair the phone without payment, the second Opposite Party directed him to contact first Opposite Party. Even though, he informed about this to first Opposite Party, he has not taken any steps. Thus, by giving low quality mobile, both Opposite Parties cheated the Complainant and obtained Rs.7,400/- which causes mental pain him. Hence, there is deficiency on their service. Hence, this complaint to get Rs.7,400/- or to replace the phone with more efficient phone, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation with cost.
3. The first Opposite Party is ex-parte from the inception itself. Though the second Opposite Party filed version, subsequently due to his absence, he declared as ex-parte.
4. During the pendency of the complaint, Complainant impleaded the third Opposite Party, manufacturer of Samsung mobile phone.
5. Third Opposite Party filed version in short which is as follows:-
There is no manufacturing defect to this mobile phone. The reason for the complaint to the mobile may be due to the negligence and careless use of the mobile by the Complainant in contravention to the user’s manual. The Complainant filed this complaint with an ulterior motive to put undue pressure on this Opposite Party. The warranty will be void if, the object is not being used as per the service schedule. The Complainant has violated the conditions. If there is allegation of manufacturing defect, it should be proved by the Complainant by test results. Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6.On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of
Opposite Parties?.
2. Reliefs and Costs.
7. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, Ext.A1, A2 and MO1. Both sides heard.
8. Point No.1:- No dispute that the Complainant purchased a Samsung mobile phone for Rs.7,400/- from the first Opposite Party on 28.11.2017. It is evident that within the warranty period, it got damage and the display of the phone became fade. The case of the Complainant is that he contacted the first Opposite Party and the first Opposite Party gave the mobile to the second Opposite Party, their service centre for repair. The grievance of the Complainant is that the second Opposite Party demanded Rs.5,200/- even though, complaint is within warranty period. The third Opposite Party contested the case under the impression that the Complainant alleged manufacturing defect to the phone. But it can be seen that the Complainant has no case that the phone has manufacturing defect. His allegation is that both first and second Opposite Parties sold a low quality phone to him. According to third Opposite Party, the defect was happened due to the careless use of the phone by the Complainant and Complainant ought to have examined the phone by an Expert Commission to prove the manufacturing defect.
9. The Complainant’s specific case is that the phone was damaged within the warranty period and neither the first Opposite Party nor the second Opposite Party repaired it without cash. As already stated, it is alleged that the second Opposite Party demanded money. To prove his case, Complainant has given evidence as PW1. Ext.A1 is the copy of the Bill and Ext.A2 is the copy ofacknowledgment of service request. Though the second Opposite Party was directed to produce the original of these documents and MO1, he produced only MO1. Since, the photo copies of those documents were marked without any objection, no need to take adverse inference against second Opposite Party. Ext.A1 would clearly shows that MO1 was purchased by the Complainant from first Opposite Party’s shop. Ext.A2 shows that MO1 had full warranty at the time of entrusting it for service to the second Opposite Party. Here, absolutely there is no material to show that the second Opposite Party had repaired MO1 or it was send back stating that there is manufacturing defect to the phone. So, the evidence of PW1 established that even though he has submitted MO1 phone to Opposite Parties for repair, without any repair or without giving back it, they compelled to file this complaint. So the Complainant established that there is deficiency in service on the part of first and second Opposite Parties. Since there is no material to prove that MO1 got manufacturing defect, it cannot be held that there is deficiency in service on the third Opposite Party.
10. The Complainant asked for Rs.7,400/-, the price of MO1 or to get more featured mobile phone. Since there is deficiency in service on the part of first and second Opposite Parties, the Complainant is entitled to get back Rs.7,400/-. But, he is not entitled to get more featured mobile phone. He Wants to get Rs.5,000/- as compensation. It is exorbitant amount. So, the first and second Opposite Parties are liable to pay Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses to the Complainant. Thus, Point No.1 is answered in favour of Complainant as discussed above.
11. Point No.2: Since, Point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant, he is entitled to get the relief in part as discussed above.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the first Opposite Party is directed to give back Rs.7,400/- (Rupees Seven Thousand and Four Hundred Only) to the Complainant. Both first and second Opposite Parties are directed to give Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand Only) equally to the Complainant and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) equally to the Complainant. Both are bound to give the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Release MO1 if there is request from first Opposite Party, if he paid the amount, if not, destroy it.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of October 2022.
Date of Filing:-12.02.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. P. R. Sadhanandhan. Water Service.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Sale Bill. Dt:28.11.2017.
A2. Copy of Acknowledgment of Service Request. Dt:12.01.2018.
MO1. Samsung J2 Phone.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
