Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

     President

1.       The complainant Smt. Kalamma.D Represented by Attorney holder Mr. Anil Kumar. H.J, Mysuru has filed this complaint against the opposite party No.1 Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., Hariyana.  Opposite party No.2 Ashok Sales Internal, Mysuru.  Opposite party No.3 Samsung Service Centre, Mysuru praying to direct the opposite parties to return the remitted amount of INR.57,900/- with interest and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the hardship, inconvenience, mental agony caused to her.  

2. The brief facts are that:-

The complainant submits that the opposite party No.1 is the Corporate Company of leading Manufacturer, Supplier, Marketing and Sales of Smartphones in the brand name as Samsung.Opposite party No.2 is the best store room of selling Smartphones and opposite party No.1 is the higher authority of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3.On 03.04.2018 the opposite party had offered complainant to purchase Samsung Mobile G960 S9, black color handset with battery backup of 24 hours (hereinafter referred as schedule product).The complainant accepted the offer of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and purchased schedule product for Rs.57,900/-, after borrowing finance from HDFC Bank of Rs.40,124/-.The opposite party promised the complainant with the product having battery backup of 24 hours.On 03.04.2018 the complainant after purchase of the product returned home and plugged charger and charged battery full, but after switching on the mobile handset he noticed that the battery backup is very bad.After one week inevitably complainant contacted opposite party No.2 in this regard, opposite party No.2 advised the complainant that the battery backup would pick up if the updated software installed in to the complaint schedule product.The complainant contacted opposite party No.3 in order to update the software installation as advised by opposite party No.2.It is further contended that one of the executive of the opposite party No.2 advised the complainant to hand over the schedule product for service to look into the issue of battery backup of 24 hours.On 04.06.2018 opposite party No.3 received the schedule product for service, opposite party No.4 informed the complainant that the battery backup is 3 ½ hoursof IST with connection of data usage and 5 ½hours of IST without connection of thedata usage.The complainant visited opposite party No.3 office to sort out issue, but opposite party No.3 had not sorted out issue.The act of the opposite parties that their unfair trade practice, cheating, fraudulent and misappropriate distribution of the schedule product put the complainant into mental agony and depression. On 16.07.2018 the complainant got issued a legal notice to opposite parties calling upon them to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. On 31.07.2018 the opposite party No.1 issued reply notice stating that the schedule product diagnosed by the Senior Engineer and found no defects.Hence, this complaint.

3.        After registration of this complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to opposite parties.   In spite of service of  notice to opposite party Nos.2 and 3 they does not turned up.  Hence, they were placed exparte.  In response to notice the opposite party No.1 appeared  before this Commission and has filed written version denying all the material averments made in the complaint  except admitting that the complainant had purchased the mobile in question on 03.04.2018 as true and correct and contended that after 8 months from the date of purchase i.e., 04.12.2018 complaint was filed alleging low battery backup and seeking full refund of mobile price and compensation but the complainant fail to establish how she is eligible for refund and monetary compensation when the mobile does not persist without any issue and further contended that the reliefs sought in this complaint are beyond the agreed terms and conditions of warranty.  Therefore refund/replacement cannot be ordered until and unless the complainant proves with cogent evidence with regard to low battery backup.  The only issue involved in this complaint is battery backup and nothing else in fact the battery backup always depends upon the customer’s usage pattern as well as type of application they browse.  It is further submitted that the battery backup  depends upon  4 G internet connection 4 G internet consume more battery power, if the customer uses internet frequently or plays certain games it consume more battery power.  It is further contended that on 04.06.2018 the complainant for the 1^st time reported low battery backup, after inspection the Service Engineer updated the software and repaired the mobile in good condition.  On 25.07.2018 once again for the 2^nd time the complainant approached service center, the service engineer diagnosed the issue and could not find low battery backup and denies the allegation of complainant that the opposite party offered the complainant with battery backup of 24 hours, but the complainant fail to attach supporting documentary evidence and it is further contended that when the mobile is under the use by the customers as well as the apps which were also functioning under background of the screen continuously  then how it is possible to have  24 hours battery backup  is  notaddressed by the complainant and fail to establish how it is possible to have 24 hours battery backup for all these reasons prays to dismiss the complaint.

4.   The GPA holder of the complainant in order to prove         the case of complainant  has filed his affidavit evidence by way of examination in chief and the same was taken as P.W.1 and got marked Exhibit P.1 to P.12.  On the other hand opposite party No.1 has also filed its affidavit by way of examination in chief and the same was taken as R.W.1, but not got marked any documents.

5.      We have heard the arguments of both sides.  The complainant’s counsel as well as counsel for opposite party No.1 have also filed written arguments.

6.     The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves that the act of opposite parties  that  due to their wrong advise stating that the schedule product battery backup is 24 hours amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service?
2.  What order?

7.          Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

       Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative;

      Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.          Point No.1:- The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued as per the contention taken in the complaint, affidavit of complainant and notes of arguments and as per the documents produced on behalf of complainant.  On the other hand opposite party No.1 counsel has argued as per the contention  taken in the version and notes of arguments.  

9.      We have carefully gone through the records complaint averments, affidavit of complainant documents produced by the complainant and notes of arguments and version of opposite party No.1 and the notes of arguments.

10.    It is not in dispute that the complainant has purchased the mobile handset of Samsung company which is more fully described in the schedule from opposite party No.2 on 03.04.2018 for Rs.57,900.  The opposite party No.1 admitted the said fact as true and correct and the complainant has produced documents Exhibit P.2 tax invoice which shows that the complainant has purchased the mobile handset from opposite party No.2

11.     It is the allegation of the complainant that opposite party No.2 offered him to purchase the mobile handset in question with a battery backup of 24 hours but after purchase of the same the complainant found that the battery backup of the product was low and that he approached opposite party No.2 and complained about the issue that the mobile handset battery backup is very bad condition the opposite party No.2 advised the complainant to hand over the same for service.  Accordingly the complainant handed over the same to opposite party No.3.  The opposite party No.3 informed the complainant that the product will be serviced into better battery backup.  Subsequently  opposite party No.3 informed the complainant stating that the battery backup is 3 ½ hours with the usage of data without usage of data the battery backup is 5 ½ hours.  But the opposite parties not sorted out the issue. Per contra opposite party No.1 has contended that there is no proof produced by the complainant to show that the opposite party No.2 offered the complainant to purchase the mobile handset in question with battery backup of 24 hours and contended that the mobile used by the customer as well as the apps were also function under the background of the screen continuously then how it is possible  to have batter backup  of 24 hours is not addressed by the complainant and he fail to establish how it possible to have 24 hours battery backup.   

12.   The complainant in order to establish that opposite party No.2 offered when to  purchase the mobile handset in question with battery backup of 24 hours not produced any documents to show that the battery backup of mobile handset in question is 24 hours.  The complainant has produced invoice for having purchased the mobile handset in question in which there is no mention about the battery backup of 24 hours in respect of mobile handset in question.  The complainant also produced acknowledgement of service request where in it is mentioned that the product is used and checked with sim and Wi-Fi and no problem found and one more document issued by opposite party No.3 i.e., battery usage shows that estimated battery life is 18 hours 4 minutes and the same is based on usage over the last 7 days.   The opposite party No.1 produced copy of warranty information which shows that handset warranty period is 12 months.  Accessories purchased warranty period  is 12 months.  But in the documents produced by the complainant as well as opposite party No.1 it is nowhere mentioned that the mobile handset in question is battery backup of 24 hours and more over according to the contention of opposite party No.1 the complainant complained of low batter power after 8 months from the date of purchase but not established that the opposite party No.2 had offered the complainant to purchase the mobile handset in question with battery backup of 24 hours.

13. From the allegations made in the complaint as well as the documents produced by the complainant and opposite party No.1 there is no mention anywhere in the documents such as tax invoice, warranty information etc., that the battery backup is  24 hours in respect of mobile handset in question except the averments made in the complaint.   So it appears that the complainant without any documentary evidence has come up with the mere pleadings in the complaint stating that the opposite party No.2 offered him to purchase the Samsung mobile handset in question with battery backup of 24 hours.

14.   Anyway by taking into consideration of the complaint averments that the opposite party No.2 offered the complainant to purchase Samsung mobile handset in question with battery backup of 24 hours.  Accordingly he purchased the same but after one week he noticed that low battery backup and he complained the same with the opposite parties, the opposite parties did not sorted out the issues, therefore he has came up with present complaint seeking refund of mobile handset price of Rs.57,900/- and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- without any supporting documentary evidence.  But from the contention taken in the complaint by the complainant prima-facie it appears that the  battery backup of mobile handset in question is low and taking into consideration that the mobile handset in question was purchased by the complainant on 03.04.2018 and the complaint was filed on 06.12.2018 within the warranty period.  So it appears that within the warranty period of 12 months the battery backup is very low.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the opposite parties either to repair the battery of the mobile handset in question with battery back up to its maximum extent or to replace battery.

15. In view of the opposite parties did not sorted out the issue of battery of mobile handset in question it is nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Therefore  we answer point No.1  partly in the affirmative.

16. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

The complaint filed by complainant is allowed in part.

The opposite parties are hereby jointly and severally liable to repair the battery of the mobile handset in question with its maximum battery life OR to replace the same within 2 months from the date of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

No order as to cost.

Furnish the copy of order to both the parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Forum on this the 28^th  July, 2020)