By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1.The complaint in short is as follows: -
On 19/02/2020 complainant purchased one Samsung mobile phone worth
Rs. 29,500/- from new mobile house, Kizhisseri. At the time of purchasing the mobile phone the shop keeper assured and offered one year warranty after checking the warranty card attached by opposite party No.2 in the box. But on 12/09/2020 that means within 6 months of its purchase, it was noted that there was a colour variation seen in the LCD of the mobile phone. As per the direction of the shop keeper, complainant given the hand set to the authorised Samsung service centre, opposite party No.1 for repair. But opposite party No.1 gave the handset to complainant as useless manner. The handset after repair was not fit for use. Opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that the mobile phone had water particles inside it, or that was happened due to fall of the handset in the water. Hence the handset was lost the warranty benefits. But the phone never fell into water or there was no chance to get water inside the mobile phone. Complainant directed the opposite party No.1 to rectify the defect of the mobile phone. But he was not ready to repair the mobile phone without charges. Due to the defect of the mobile phone complainant had faced monitory loss and mental agony. Moreover complainant’s children’s are studying and their classes were conducted through mobile phone at that time.
2. Thereafter complainant filed a complaint before the SHO, Kondotty Police station regarding this mobile phone. But nothing happened. Hence this complaint. At the time of filing this complaint there was only one opposite party which is Samsung Service Centre, Kondotty. Thereafter he impleaded Samsung Company as opposite party No.2. The prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get Rs. 95,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant and cost of the proceedings.
3. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 appeared before the Commission and on 28/09/2020 they filed version. They stated that after inspection it is seen that complainant’s mobile phone had water particles at the side of display, so the phone will not cover the warranty benefits. They again said that the above handset had fallen from the hand of complainant at their shop. They wanted to implead the Samsung India Electronics, the company as opposite party No.2. Thereafter they did not appear before the Commission and not filed affidavit. Hence on 08/02/2021 opposite party No.1 set exparte. Notice was issued to opposite party No.2 and notice served on them and opposite party No.2 appeared before the Commission through their counsel and filed version.
4. In their version, opposite party No.2 admitted that complainant had purchased a mobile phone which is manufactured by them and on 12/09/2020 the handset was brought before the service centre in connection with the complaint of line on display. They again stated that after inspection it was found that the complaint was occurred due to water logged which was a physical damage and hence the estimates given for repair as the warranty was not applicable. Unit was repaired by replacing OCTA on chargeable basis since warranty was not applicable to the unit. The complaint was occurred due to physical damage and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any free of cost service even if there is warranty. The complaint occurred and reported was not related to manufacturing issue but the same was physical damage that unable to repair on free of cost. They again denied the alleged complaint of the complainant that complaint was occurred from the hands of the service centre. The service centre issued job card and images that clearly shows that the same was damaged physically. Otherwise complainant ought to have taken steps to prove that there was no complaint to the handset while given for service. After the repair the unit had not given to the service centre for further complaint alleged by the complainant and that proves that the unit had no complaint after the repair.
5. They again stated that as per the complaint, the unit had given for service since line were seen in the LCD that clearly shows that the unit had complaint prior to the entrustment with the service centre. Due to the above reason the unit was examined and found the defect. That also informed to the complainant and as per his consent the same was repaired on chargeable basis. They again submitted that as per the terms of the warranty policy, only issues arising within the scope of warranty will be repaired free of cost and all repairs which comes outside the warranty will be repaired on chargeable basis. They again stated that the alleged defect cannot be determined on the simple submission of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. The complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report for the perusal of the Hon’ble Commission. In the absence of any technical report on record the complaint deserves dismissal on that ground alone.
6. They again submitted that there is no latches on their part. They had not committed any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. The present complaint is without any just or reasonable basis. The handset of the complainant was not damaged from the hands of the service centre as alleged by the complainant. Hence complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
7. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the copy of receipt given from Kondotty Police Station after receiving the complaint from complainant on 12/09/2020. Ext.A2 is the copy of the warranty card. Ext.A3 is the copy of the police complaint given by complainant before the SHO, Kondotty Police Station on 12/09/2020. Thereafter opposite party No.2 also filed affidavit and documents and the documents marked as Ext. B1 to B4. Ext. B1 is the copy of the power of attorney, Ext. B2 is the original service request, Ext. B3 is the warranty card, Ext. B4 series are the images of the of the mobile phone (2 Nos.) Thereafter opposite party No.2 filed argument notes.
8. Heard complainant and opposite party No.2 Perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-
Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
If so, reliefs and cost
9. Point No.1 & 2
Case of the complainant is that, the mobile phone worth Rs.29,500/- purchased on 19/02/2020 having one year warranty had colour variation problems on 12/09/2020 which is within 6 to 7 months from the date of purchase. Complainant entrusted the mobile phone to opposite party No.1 for repairing. The handset had problems of colour change in the LCD. But opposite party No.1 returned the handset to complainant in a useless manner. But opposite party stated that complaint was occurred due to water logged inside the mobile phone which was a physical damage and a warranty void condition. Hence complainant is not entitled to get any free of cost service even if there is warranty.
10. After verifying the documents Ext.A1 to A3 filed by complainant, it is seen that on 19/02/2020 complainant had purchased one mobile phone and on 12/09/2020 he had filed a complaint before the Kondotty Police Station as per petition No.104862/2020. Ext.A1 is the receipt given by SHO, Kondotty Police Station to complainant after receiving Ext.A3 complaint. Ext.A2 is the warranty card and in that document it is clear that the mobile phone purchased on 19/02/2020. Opposite party No.2 produced Ext.B2 document which shows that complainant requested for repair on 19/11/2020 and the defect description mentioned was display cracked. They submitted Ext.B4 series photographs of the mobile phone and they stated that “due to liquid logging inside the phone, display is internally damaged”. They again stated that in Ext.B4 (2) photographs “LDI Liquid Damage indicator turned white to light pink due to liquid entry inside the phone which has caused the phone damage. Warranty void case.’’ Opposite party No.2 admitted that the above mobile phone had one year warranty and Ext.B3 document also shows the same.
11. But after verification, it is seen that the above mentioned mobile phone had one year warranty and it showed problem of colour variation within 6 or seven months of its purchase. Opposite party No.1 set exparte, but on 28/09/2020 he filed a version before the Commission and admitted that on 12/09/2020 complainant came to their service centre for repairing the display. But opposite party No.2 never admitted that. They stated that, complainant approached the service centre only on 19/11/2020 with the mobile phone and its display was damaged which was clearly visible and evident. But in Ext.A3, police complaint, the date mentioned was 12/09/2020. Ext.A1 is the receipt given to complainant from Kondotty Police Station after receiving the complaint of the complainant. In that complaint, complainant clearly stated that he had entrusted the mobile phone for repair to opposite party No.1 and the display of the mobile phone had got fully damaged after repair. From that documents we are on the opinion that there was some colour variation in the mobile phone of the complainant and he approached the opposite party No.1 for rectifying that defect. On the same day the mobile phone display got damaged. The question arising is whether it was happened from the side of opposite party No.1 or complainant. As per documents, it is seen that complainant filed one complaint on the very same day before the Kondotty Police Station. Moreover he stated that the defect of minimum colour variation became changed into the damage of the display of the mobile phone. It is a believable statement.
12. But opposite party No.2 produced Ext. B2 document which shows that the service request was made by complainant only on 19/11/2020 due to display cracked. They even not produced the service request or service record dated 12/09/2020. Opposite party No.1 admitted that complainant approached them on 12/09/2020 and the documents also stated the same. That means complainant’s mobile phone had problems within 6 or 7 months of its purchase. That means within the warranty period. From Ext. B4 (2) shows that the manufacturing date of the
mobile phone was 20/10/2019. But opposite parties never mentioned that date in
their version and affidavit of opposite party No.2.
13. From the documents it is clear that complainant had approached opposite party No.1 on 12/09/2020. From Ext.A1 and A3 it is clear that he had filed complaint before the SHO Kondotty on the same day. As per complainant's case, he found some colour variation in the display of the mobile phone which happened within the warranty period. He approached opposite party No.1 to rectify that defect. Opposite party No.1 in his version stated that the mobile phone of complainant fell down from complainant’s hand at his service centre. But opposite party No.1 did not file any evidence to prove his contention. No document or photographs showing the condition of the mobile phone when the complainant handed over the phone to the opposite party No.1 for repair has not been submitted by the opposite party No.1 before the Commission. In his version he stated that complainant approached him on 12/09/2020. No service record is produced before the Commission regarding the first service. As per Ext.A1 and A3 it is clear that complainant filed a petition before the SHO, Kondotty regarding the complaint of his handset on the same day. In that complaint complainant clearly stated that “® T¢.¨h¡-¨¨fv 1lt-n« l¡-sÊ¢-i¤¾-Y® ¨Os¢-i Y-J-j¡t d-j¢-p-j¢-´¤-¼-Y¢c® ¨J¡-©Ù¡-¶¢-i¢-¨k f-oæ® Í¡Ê¢c¤ o-h£-d-·¤-¾ T¢.F-Y¢t-È¢-i¤-¨T Ì¡-d-c-·¢v cv-J¢-i¢-j¤¼¤. F-¼¡v T¢.¨oÊ-s¢-¨k Q£-l-c-´¡t A-s¢-i¢-µ-Y¢-¨cY¤-T-t-¼® ¨h¡-¨¨fk¢¨Ê Display d¥t-»-h¡-i¢ c-m¢-´¤-Ji¤« ¨O-i®Y¤. C-Y¢-¨c-J¤-s¢-µ® T¢.F-Y¦-J-È¢-J-©q¡-T® o«-o¡-j¢-µ-©¸¡w A-lt F-c¢-´® ©c-¨j g£-È-X¢ D-it-·¤-J-i¤«, c¢-¹w´® T¢.©e¡x oª-Q-c¬-h¡-i¢ c-¼¡-´¢ Y-j¢-¨¿-¼¤« ©l-X-¨h-Æ¢v ©d¡-k£-o® o®-©×-n-c¢v d-j¡-Y¢ ¨J¡-T¤©·¡ F¼¤« A-Y¤-h-¨¿-Æ¢v Jx-o¬¥-ht ©J¡-T-Y¢-i¢v d-j¡-Y¢ ¨J¡-T¤©·¡ F¼¤« g£-n-X¢-¨¸-T¤-·¤-Ji¤« ¨O-i®Y¤. But opposite party No.1 did not file affidavit and documents. They set exparte on 08/02/2021. It is easy for them to submit what happened after filing the complaint by complainant before the SHO , Kondotty against them. They did not mention anything about the police complaint. In their version and affidavit opposite party No.2 stated that complainant filed a complaint only on 19/11/2020. It is easy for opposite party No.2 to summon opposite party No.1 before the Commission. Opposite party No.1 is the technician who repaired complainant’s mobile phone. He did not file affidavit and the opposite party No.2 did not summoned him before the Commission to adduce evidence. Hence it is clear that opposite party No.1 and 2 had suppressed something from the Commission. Opposite parties can summon an expert from outside to depose the condition of mobile phone. That expert can easily submit before the Commission whether the colour variation happened due to water logged or not. No steps taken by both the parties. It is the duty of opposite parties to rectify the defect of the mobile phone during the warranty period. It is a clear deficiency in service from their part. Hence the Commission finds that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite parties are deficient in service.
14. We allow this complaint as follows:-
The opposite party No.2 is to refund Rs.29,500/-(Rupees Twenty nine thousand and five hundred only) the cost of the mobile phone to complainant and complainant is directed to return the mobile phone to opposite parties .
The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
The opposite parties also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite parties are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 23rd day of February, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A3
Ext.A1 : Copy of receipt given from Kondotty police station after receiving the
complaint from complainant on 12/09/2020.
Ext.A2 : Copy of the warranty card.
Ext.A3 : Copy of the police complaint given by complainant before the SHO,
Kondotty Police Station on 12/09/2020.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B4
Ext. B1 : Copy of the power of attorney.
Ext.B2 : Original service request.
Ext.B3 : Warranty card.
Ext.B4 : Series are the images of the of the mobile phone (2 Nos.)
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
