BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.
DATE: 22nd December 2015
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.: 217/2015
Complainant/s: Kallappa s/o. Fakeerappa Katagi, R/o.Nargund, Dist.Gadag.
(By Sri.V.S.Deshapande, Adv.)
v/s
Respondent/s: 1) Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd., 2nd, 3rd & 4th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Sector 43, Gurgaon-122002.
(By Sri.K.V.Badiger, Adv.)
2) Siddhivinayak Service, At: 1st Floor, Laxmi Ramakrishna Square, Hubli – 580021.
3) Proprietor, Admire Mobil Phone & Accessories at wholesale Price At: 16,
(Exparte)
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay Rs.8,000/- towards the value of the set with interest @24% P.A., from the date of damages to the consignment, to direct to pay Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to grant such other reliefs.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant had purchased mobile set Samsung model SM –G350EZ KAINS Sl.No.RZ1F806HS1L from the respondent.3 dealer of proprietorship of respondent.1 on 20.08.2018 by paying Rs.8,000/- with one year warranty. Respondent.2 is the authorized service center. After some days from the date of purchase the mobile set did not worked due to manufactural defects. Hence, the complainant approached respondent.2. Since the defects shot out within warranty period with all documents on 14.02.2015 but respondent.2 did not repaired nor replaced the mobile set. Further the respondent.2 did not take any further course to repair the mobile set. Hence, the complainant approached expert in mobile sets according to the expert, the said mobile set was suffering from manufactural defects and it requires substantial replacement of the mobile set and reassembly thereof. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice to the respondents on 26.03.2015. Inspite of service of the notice the respondents did not taken any steps regarding redressal of the complaint which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.
3. In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondent.1 appeared. While respondent.2 and 3 remained absent despite service of notice. Hence, exparte proceedings initiated by placing respondent 2 and 3 exparte.
4. The respondent.1 admits written version in detail taking contention that the very complaint is not maintainable either in facts or on law. Further taken and denied the defects in device and allegation of deficiency in service. Further asserted the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. Further the respondent contends the complainant with false allegations approached this Forum even though there is no any defects in mobile set due to manufactural defects nor the respondents have not committed any deficiency in service. Further the respondent submits complainant approached the service center respondent.2 only once till approaching this Forum with dead condition of the device. After detailed perusal of internal part it reveals there is water log damages to the device. This fact was informed to the complainant by the respondent 2 and he has been informed with regard to cost of the replacement of the part of about Rs.4821/- as the complainant did not agreed to pay cost for replacement of the part, the respondent.2 could not able to replace the defects part and set right the unit. In the job sheet dt.14.02.2015 at Clause.5 it is clearly mentioned that liquid log case will not be considered under warranty. In the cases of liquid logging cases warranty does not covers and will be repaired on payment only. For that the complainant did not agreed. Further the answering respondent denied the submission of the complainant that the device was shown to some expert and he opined the defects is due to manufactural defects. The complainant had used the mobile set from 20.08.2014 till 14.02.2015 nearly for more than 6 months without any problem, if there was any manufactural defects it would have not worked during those days. Further submits the respondent is ever ready to set right the defects provided the complainant pays the cost of the replacement of the parts & rest of the other complaint allegations were denied and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same with a prayer to dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
5. On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit & relied on documents. Complainant tendered interrogatories while respondent replies. Apart from argument respondent relied on citations. Heard. Perused the records.
Finding on points is as under.
- Negatively
- Accordingly
- As per order
Reasons
Points 1 and 2
6. On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from the respondent 3 marketed by the respondent.1.
7. Now the question to be determined is, whether the mobile set in question is suffering from manufactural defects within the warranty period and non set righting the same by the respondents amounts to deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.
8. Since the facts have been revealed in detail which requires no repetition.
9. The respondent do not disputes the defects in the set and approach of the complainant to the respondent.2 with the problem to set right the same. But the contention of the respondent is that the defects shot out is not due to manufactural defects but, is due to water log. Hence, the defects due to water log not covers warranty terms and conditions, as such the respondent.2 authorised service center insist the complainant to pay charges for replacement of the defective part due to water log. For that the complainant reluctant to pay the same. Hence, the respondent.2 could not able to replace the defective part and set right the defects, as such the respondent has not committed any deficiency in service. In support of this contention the respondent produced Ex.R1(a) and Ex.R2, but the complainant disputes the Ex.R1(a) stating that it is a manipulated document and relied on Ex.C2 Job card issued by the respondent.2 on 14.02.2015. On perusal of the Ex.C2 in the defects description it is shown “dead”, but no reason is mentioned for dead. By this assertion and denial by both the parties it is evident that the mobile set in question is not working, but it is not coming forth the dead i.e. non functioning of the unit whether due to manufactural defects or due for any other external force, is also not comingforth. But on looking into the Ex.C2 and Ex.R1(a) are the copies generated on the same date and at same time. For this the respondent argued, while the Ex.C2 is the format maintained by the service center Respondent.2. While Ex.R1(a) is the format maintained by the respondent no.1. Respondent.2 / authorized service center after receiving the complaint will note the defects which were narrated by the complainant. On verification of the unit technician will note the reason for the defects and the same will be forwarded to the manufacturer and asserted this is the system, there is no occasion to manipulate the Ex.R1(a) as contended by the complainant. This assertion of respondent further fortified by seeing Sl.No.5 terms and conditions of Ex.C-2, wherein it is stated the product has been accepted for service subject to the internal verification. As such it is confirmed water log is not mentioned in Ex.C-2 and it appears in Ex.R1(a) subsequently. As such it is confirmed not manipulation as contended by the complainant.
10. In the meantime the complainant tendered interrogatories to the respondent. While the respondent replies. To the interrogatories .5 - whether the opponent no.2 informed the complainant about liquid log in the handset ? if so, when and the proof thereof ? For this respondent.1 replies under Sl.No.6, answer to interrogatories.5 – Yes. After due verification the complainant was informed about liquid log to his device and same is documented and saved in the system [(document.1) (Ex.R1(a))]. Even for the questionnaire.4 , whether the opponent supplied the document no.1 to the complainant and obtained acknowledgement thereof ? whether the document.1 is prepared and maintained by the opponent.1 or the opponent.2 ? reply: 5) the job sheet (document.1) (Ex.R1(a))is generated by the respondent.2 after due verification of the device and the same is saved in the system. For interrogatories.7 whether the opponents made any efforts to inform about the liquid log in the hand set to the complainant, when the legal notice was served to them ? Reply.8) not within my knowledge.
11. On going through the above interrogatories and reply the complainant did not secure any counts to establish his case of the mobile set in question suffering from manufactural defects. For interrogatories.7 the respondent.1 replies, not within my knowledge. On perusal of the legal notice Ex.C3 & C4 it is issued only to the respondent.2 and respondent.3 the legal notice is not issued to the respondent.1. Under those circumstances the interrogatories.7 has no consequence. Ex.R2 warranty condition clearly reveals the terms and conditions and water log is excludes and item no.7 of the warranty conditions in case of replacement of any defective parts which do not covers warranty terms and conditions are chargeable. Even considering the Ex.C2 job card the complainant approached the respondent.2 after 6 months of purchase in between the time 20.08.2014 till 14.02.2015 the complainant had used the mobile set without any problem. When he took the same to the respondent 2 it was totally dead and loss of data in the device. Under those circumstances it might be due to either external damages or due to water log. The complainant did not adduced any evidence to establish his case of the unit is suffering from manufactural defects. Though it is the case of the complainant that when the respondents did not attend the problem he approached one expert in mobiles, during that time the said expert told, the mobile set is suffering from manufactural defects required substantial replacement of certain parts of the cell and reassembly thereof. Except alleging these facts the complainant even did not make any attempts to examine the said expert before the Forum. While the respondent contending that the problem has been sought out due to water log as per Ex.R1(a) which do not covers warranty. In support of this contention the respondent relied on 2012 (2) CPJ Pg10- K.L.Sharma vs. Janata Electronics & Ors., Himachal SCDRC Shimla. The complainant totally failed to establish his case that the mobile set is suffering from manufactural defects and not due to any watering. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief much less the relief sought, except for repair on payment of charges.
12. In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 Negatively and accordingly .
13. Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following
O R D E R
Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 22nd day of December 2015)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
MSR
