IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 10th day of November, 2017
Filed on 22.04.2017
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.108/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Krishnakumar 1. Samsung India Electronics
Velickakathu Pvt. Ltd, A25,Ground Floor
Chettikadu, Pathirapally.P.O Front Tower
Alappuzha-688 521 Mohan co-op. Indl. Estate
New Delhi-110044
(Adv. P.S.Anaghan)
2. Cellular World
Municipal Shopping Complex
Cherthala- 688 524
3. Accel Frontline Ltd.
14/66, 1st Floor, J.P.Tower
VCSB Road, Alappuzha-688011
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complaint in short is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a mobile phone from the 2nd opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs. 26,900/- on 20/8/2016. The opposite parties assured one year warranty for the product. The product became defective on 23/1/2017 and the defect was intimated to the 2nd opposite party and the complainant entrusted to phone to the 2nd opposite party to getting the defects rectified and they informed the complainant that the defect is with regard to the mother board and it takes one month time for repairing the product. Thereafter on 23/2/ 2017 they returned the phone after rectifying the defect. But there after the phone became defective and this time the complaint is with regard to overheat and power on-off issues and the display is also not properly functioning and the complainant entrusted the phone to the 3rd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of 1st opposite party on 11/4/2017. There after 3rd opposite party informed the complainant on 15/4/2017 that the phone having liquid damage and which will not covered under warranty and the opposite party demanded charges for repairing the product. According to the complainant he is handling the mobile phone with due to care and there is no chance for liquid damage and when he entrusted the phone there was no such damage as alleged by the opposite parties and the act of the opposite parties caused much mental agony to the complainant hence filed this complaint seeking refund of the price of the mobile phone together with compensation and cost.
2. Notice were issued to the opposite parties 1st and 3rd opposite party represented before the Forum and 1st opposite party filed version 2nd opposite party did not appear before the Forum, hence set expartie.
3. Version of the 1st opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. That the complainant has not approached the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts just to misguide the Hon’ble Forum. And it is settled legal preposition that one who seeks justice must come to the court with clean hands. And as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, replacement or repair of mobile set free of cost under physical damages or mishandling of the mobiles set was not mentioned. Thus 1st opposite party mentioned that service centre of 1st opposite party could rectify the defects in the mobile set is any arose because of physical and water damages and mishandling caused to mobile set in lieu of consideration/repair fees. Moreover defects due to mishandling, improper handling, or any other reasons, and defects which could be rectified, for such situation/ condition replacement or repair of Samsung mobile set is not mentioned in the warranty card as well. That the present case is gross abuse to the process of law and has been filed with ulterior motives and malafide intentions and hence needs to be dismissed. The complaint in this case had stated that the complaint was filed for defect in the mobile set and that the service centre rectified the defect which has happened due to water damages. But the complainant has suppressed the material facts that the mobile set was always delivered defect free and error free to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on ground that there was no deficiency in rendering service, on the part of opposite parties, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. That the defects from physical damage, mishandling of mobile set were not covered under the terms and condition of warranty of the said mobile set. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ext.A1 to A3 were marked.
5. Considering the allegations of the complainant, the Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs?
6. Issues:-
The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 20/8/2016 for an amount of Rs. 26,900/-. The product has one year warranty, during the warranty period the product became defective on many occasions even though 3rd opposite party repair the product again it became defective and when approached the opposite parties for getting it repaired they fail to rectify the defect and hence filed this complaint. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ext.A1 to A3 were marked. The specific case of the complainant the that the product became defective on many occasions during the warranty period and the opposite parties fail to rectify the defects under warranty so he needs refund of the price of the mobile phone.
According to the opposite party 1 and 3 the product is liquid damage and which will not cover under warranty. According to the complainant there was no such liquid damage when he entrusted the phone to the 3rd opposite party. In order to substantiate the allegation of the complainant he produced 3 documents before the Forum. Ext. A1 is the Retail Invoice dated 20/8/2016 from which it can be seen that complainant had purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party for an amount of Rs. 26,900/- on 20/8/2016. Ext.A2 is the Job Sheet dtd. 27/1/2017 from this it can be seen that the product became defective immediately after 4 months from the date of purchase. Ext.A3 is the Job Sheet dtd. 11/4/2017. On the perusal the Ext.A3 documents the warranty status shown as full warranty and nothing was mentioned regarding the liquid damage. The documents produced would not show that the product has liquid damage while entrusted the phone. So the contention of the opposite party that the product has liquid damage and which will not cover under warranty will not sustain. The product became defective on various occasions during the warranty period and they failed to rectify the defects under warranty benefits. According to the complainant time and again he approached the 3rd opposite party for getting the defects rectified. According to the complainant he purchased such on expensive phone to use it for a reasonable period of time. But he could not use the phone due recurring the defect of the phone and the opposite party failed to rectify the defects under warranty. The documents produced would show that the defect arose within the warranty period. Since the opposite party failed to rectify the defect under warranty they have committed deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get the relief and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the same. So the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed, the opposite parties are directed to refund the price of the mobile phone Rs. 26,900/-(Rupees Twenty six thousand nine hundred only) to the complainant. Opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) towards compensation No order as to cost. The order shall be complied with in one month from the date of the receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum of Rs. 26,900/- form the date of order till realization. There is no order as to cost. On compliance of the order the complainant is directed to return the disputed phone to the opposite parties.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 10th day of November, 2017.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) : .
Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Copy of Retail invoice dtd. 20/8/2016
Ext.A2 - Copy of the Job Sheet dtd.22/1/2017
Exts.A3 - Copy of Job sheet dtd.11/4/17
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- br/-
Compared by:-
