Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/28/2016

K.Imran Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung Authorized Service Center (Mobile) - Opp.Party(s)

S.Mahendran ,A.valeeullah

21 May 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  22.02.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  21.05.2018

 

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

 

MONDAY THE 21^st DAY OF MAY 2018

 

C.C.NO.28/2016

 

 

Mr.K.Imran Khan,

No.220, 5^th Block,

Muthamizh Nagar,

Kodangaiyur,

Chennai – 600 118.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. The Manager,

Poorvika Mobiles Private Limited,

B.O.No.4, T.H.Road,

M.R.Nagar,

Chennai – 600 118.

 

2. The Manager,

Samsung Authorized Service Centre (Mobile),

New No.193, Old No.141,

Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002,

(Near LIC Building & Next to Witco

Opp. To Rayala Towers)

 

 

 

 

3. The manager,

The Samsung India Electronic (P) Ltd.,

Regional Office,

No.38/5 (1042 Rating),

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.

 

4. The Managing Director,

Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd.,

Samsung Customer Satisfaction,

2,3 & 4^th Floor, Tower – C,

Vipul Tech Square, Sector – 43,

Golf Course Road,

Gurgaon,

Haryana – 122 002.

 

5. The Managing Director,

Samsung India Electronic (P) Ltd.,

A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower,

Co-operative Industrial Estate,

New Delhi – 110 044.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 08.03.2016

Counsel for Complainants                    : M/s. S.Mahendran, S.A.Valeeullah &

                                                                    K.Mohammed Jamal

 

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party               : M/s. S.Muthuselvam, B.Mahendran

                                                             Ex – parte (on 17.07.2017)(Non- filing of

                                                                  Proof Affidavit)    

 

Counsel for 2 to 4 opposite parties     : M/s. V.V.Giridhar, P.Suresh, K.Senthil

 

Counsel for 5^th opposite party             : Dismissed as given-up (on 17.07.2017)

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

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

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct all the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile or refund a sum of Rs.8,500/- with interest and also to pay compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy J2 mobile from the 1^st opposite party on 28.10.2015 on payment of Rs.8,500/-. The said mobile was manufactured by the 4^th opposite party. The warranty is for one year. On 10.12.2015 the complainant found that the said mobile was hanged and he approached the 1^st opposite party and on his direction he went to the 2^nd opposite party/service centre on 12.12.2015. The 2^nd opposite party received the mobile and said that software was spoiled and will be repaired. After half an hour the 2^nd opposite party service man informed him that he was not able to correct the problem and said that the board or display will have to be changed and asked him to come on 16.12.2015. The mobile was with the 2^nd opposite party.

          2. On 16.12.2015 the 2^nd opposite party person called the complainant to pay Rs.4,700/- for rectifying the defect . The product is under the warranty and the opposite parties are liable to replace the mobile as the mobile is having manufacturing defect. The complainant made complaint through e-mail on 04.01.2016 to the 4^th opposite party and on a call on 05.01.2016 from the 5^th opposite party, he furnished all the details and even after that no rectification was done. Hence the complainant issued notice to the opposite parties and thereafter filed the complaint to direct all the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile or refund a sum of Rs.8,500/- with interest and also to pay compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.   

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

          The 1^st opposite party submits that they are only wholesale dealer for various cell phone companies. As per dealership 1^st opposite party has purchased mobile with various mobile phone companies and thereafter sell the mobile phone through their branches. The complainant purchased instrument SAMSUNG GALAXY J2, IMEI.NO.3535080 – 75741533, with its accessories (which include charger, battery and respected company warranty card) for a sum of Rs.8,500/-  vide on dated 28.10.2015. At the time of purchasing the said mobile phone there was no defect and also made complete thorough check up before sale of the said product.

4. When the complainant approached the 1^st respondent show room due to the mobile phone problem. At the time in my company staff advised to the complainant for any defect has happen within a warranty period company alone is responsible. That’s why you shall approach company service center. Even after welfare of the company customer the 1^st opposite party get knowledge about the mobile phone from respective company service center. The service centre has replied that the problem had been rectified, but the petitioner has not come forward to get the mobile phone. Therefore the entire allegations have been made in the complainant without any material evidence. The other averments made in the complaint are denied and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

 

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 2 to 4   IN BRIEF:

           The complaint alleging that on 10.12.2015 the mobile phone purchased by the complainant got hanged and it was not working on that day onwards is denied as false on verification, it was found that the mobile phone of the complainant got completely damage due to some liquid and due to mishandling of the phone by the complainant, therefore the contention of the complainant that there was defect in the mobile phone is denied as false.

6. The complainant had approached the service centre and on verification it was found that the mobile phone of the complainant got liquid damage due to the mishandling on the part of the complainant. As per the terms of the warranty in case of any damage to the mobile phone due to the mishandling of the phone, it will not be covered under the warranty and the complainant has to pay the necessary charges for providing service to the mobile phone. The opposite parties are entitled to charge for the service rendered by them thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The fact that the complainant did not file the job card would clearly establish that there was no defect in the mobile phone. Had the complainant filed the job card of the mobile, it would have clearly falsify the case of the complainant, thus there was no deficiency of service in the services rendered to the mobile phone as per the terms of the warranty, the complainant is not entitled for replacement of the mobile phone or cost of the mobile phone. Hence these opposite parties pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.

          7. The 1^st opposite party after filing written version, did not file proof affidavit and hence he was set ex-parte on 17.07.2017 for non filing of proof affidavit. The complainant made endorsement on 17.07.2017 by giving up the 5^th opposite party. Hence the complaint against 5^th opposite party was dismissed on 17.07.2017.

8. 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?

9. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy J2 mobile on 28.10.2015 on payment  of cost of  Rs.8,500/- under Ex.A1 invoice from the 1^st opposite party and the said mobile was manufactured by the 4^th opposite party and the mobile got  warranty is for one year and on 10.12.2015  the complainant found that the said mobile was hanged and hence he approached the 1^st opposite party and on his direction he went to the 2^nd opposite party/service centre  on 12.12.2015  and the  2^nd opposite party gave Ex.A2 customer slip on receipt of the mobile for repair.

          10. The complainant would contend that the 2^nd opposite party after receiving the mobile for service informed him that  the  software was spoiled and will be repaired in  another  half an hour and the service man informed him that he was not able to correct the problem and said that the board or display will have to be changed and asked him to come on 16.12.2015 and on that day he received  a call from the 2^nd opposite party, requiring him to pay charges of Rs.4,700/- for rectifying the defect and however the mobile is well within the warranty period and therefore he is entitled to get replacement of the product as the defect alleged by the service man is in the nature of manufacturing defect and therefore issued Ex.A3 notice  and even after receipt of the same his grievances was not redressed by the opposite parties.

          11. The opposite parties 2 to 4 would contend that on verification of the mobile by the service centre, it was found that the mobile phone got liquid damage due to the mishandling on the part of the complainant and as per the terms and conditions of the warranty in case of any damage caused on mishandling warranty will not cover and the consumer has to rectify the problem on payment of charges and hence they have committed any deficiency and prays to dismiss the complaint.

          12. Admittedly the complainant purchased the mobile on 28.10.2015 and within one and a half month the mobile got hung on 10.12.2015 and on 12.12.2015 he entrusted the mobile to the 2^nd opposite party for service. The contention of the opposite parties 2 to 4 is that the mobile got liquid damage due to mishandling. The 2^nd opposite party after receiving mobile on 12.12.2015 he had checked the same and asked the complainant to come on 16.12.2015. Even on 16.12.2015 when the service person informed the complainant to pay charges of Rs.4,700/- at that time he did not informed the liquid damage due to mishandling . No document filed by the opposite parties to prove that the alleged mishandling done by the complainant. The opposite parties received Ex.A3 legal notice on 23.12.2015 and 28.12.2015 and even after receipt of the same; they did not inform about the mishandling. Only after filing the complaint, first time in written version before this forum only the opposite parties have taken such stand of mishandling. This circumstance establishes that the opposite parties 2 to 4 have taken the defect of mishandling done by the complainant only for the purpose of the case and we reject the same.

          13. Within one and a half month, the mobile got hung and handed over to the 2^nd opposite party and he did not rectify the same proves that the product is having manufacturing defect. The mobile got warranty for one year. When the mobile got hung such a defect would have to be rectified on the cover of warranty and the opposite parties 2 to 4 refused to rectify the defects and demands charges establishes that the opposite parties 2 to 4 have committed deficiency. When the product is having manufacturing defect and the 2^nd opposite party has not rectifying the same and the product is also with him till date and thus we hold that the opposite party 2 to 4 have committed deficiency in service.

14.  The 1^st opposite party is only a dealer and he had sold the product which was manufactured by the 4^th opposite party and therefore he had not committed any deficiency in service and with regard to 5^th opposite party the complaint has against him was already dismissed on 17.07.2017.

15. POINT NO:2

The complainant purchased the mobile for a sum of Rs.8,500/- is not in dispute and the said mobile is also with the 2^nd opposite party who is authorized service centre of the 4^th opposite party. Therefore, we direct the opposite parties 2 to 4 to pay the cost of the mobile of Rs.8,500/- to the complainant. As these opposite parties has failed to rectify the defect and the 2^nd opposite party is having the mobile with him, immediately within one and  a half month of purchase and thereby depriving the complainant not to use the product caused mental agony to him is accepted and for the same and it would be appropriate to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the 1^st opposite party is liable to be dismissed. The complaint in respect of the 5^th opposite party was already dismissed on 17.07.2017.

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 2 to 4 jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.8,500/- (Rupees eight   thousand and five hundred only) towards the cost of the mobile to the Complainant and also to pay  a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten 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 1^st opposite party is dismissed.  The complaint in respect of the 5^th opposite party was already dismissed on 17.07.2017.

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 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 21^st   day of May 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 28.10.2015                   Xerox copy of purchase bill from Poorvika

                                                     Mobiles Private Ltd.,

 

Ex.A2 dated 12.12.2015                   Xerox copy Customer Information Slip from the

                                                     Authorized Service Centre

 

Ex.A3 dated 22.12.2015                   Copy of Legal Notice to all the opposite parties by

                                                      the complainant

 

Ex.A4 dated 23.12.2015                   Acknowledgement cards by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite

                                                      parties

 

Ex.A5 dated 28.12.2015                   Net Tracking from the Indian Postal Department of

                                                      the opposite parties 3 to 5

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                      ……. NIL ……

 

 

                                               

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT