DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 5^th  day of February, 2024

Present     :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                   :  Smt. Vidya A., Member              

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                 Date of Filing: 30/05/2022    

              CC/95/2022

Sibi Simon,

S/o. Simon,

Cheeran house, Near Railway Overbridge,

Pattambi – 679 303                                                                -           Complainant

(By Adv.  M/s. U. Muhammed Musthafa,

  K. Kuttappan, Suneera Karumuthil,

  T.M.Abdul Rasheed, Riyas Muhamood &

  Shibu Shamsudheen)  

                                                                                                              Vs

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.,

Floors 20 to 24, Two Horizon Centre,

Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF Phase V,

Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002

Rep. by Managing Director.

2. Amazon India Pvt.Ltd.,

Brigade Gateway,

8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road,

Malleswaram (W), Bangalore – 560 055

Rep.by its Managing Director.

3. Telectronics,

Shop No.143, Janatha Cloth Market, J.K. Sawant Marg,

Dadar West, Mumbai – 400 028

Rep.by its Proprietor, Mahindra Sonara Chouhan.                -           Opposite parties  

(O.P.1 by Adv. Manimangalath Sameer Babu

 O.P.2 by Adv. A. Santhoshkumar

 O.P.3 - case abated for non-prosecution)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Quintessential pleadings necessary to adjudicate the dispute is that the complainant purchased a Galaxy Note 20 mobile manufactured by OP1 through the OP2.  While within the warranty period itself the product developed defects. The OP1 refused to carry out the repairs under warranty holding that the product’s warranty was not available in India as the product is an overseas manufactured one. Aggrieved thereby this complaint is filed.
2. (a)        OP1 entered appearance filed version stating that the warranty was not available to the complainant as the product was manufactured abroad. They had informed the complainant that they would repair the mobile at a reduced charge but the complainant refused to accept the said terms. It was only due to the adamant approach of the complainant that the repairs could not be carried out.

(b)        OP2 is the internet platform where from the mobile was purchased. They stated that the purchase was effected from a dealer at Mumbai and that they had no further liability or responsibility.

(c)        OP3 was the dealer and since no steps were taken for issuance of notice to O.P.3, complaint as against OP3 was abated.  

3. Upon a studied consideration of the pleadings and   counter pleadings, the following issues were framed for adjudication:

1. Whether the mobile phone in question is covered under any warranty?
2. Whether the opposite parties failed to attempt to the complaints of the product under the warranty available, if any?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

5.         Cost & compensation if any?

4.          (i)      Evidence comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A7.   

(ii)      OPs 1 & 2 filed proof affidavit. OP1 marked Exts.B1 to B3. Since there was no  

           representation for OP2,  documents mentioned in the proof affidavit were not

           marked.    

            Issue No.1

5.         Complainant pleaded that he purchased a Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra 5G with Snapdragon 865 Plus having product ID V08GYTNRGF (9B-BOES-ZN14) manufactured by the first opposite party through the second opposite party platform on 21/1/2021.  While still within the warranty period, the product started suffering from display issues even though complaint was registered with the second OP no reply was received. Officials of first OP informed that the product is an overseas manufactured one and they could not honour the warranty as promised. The 1^st OP also informed that the mobile could be repaired only on chargeable basis. It is aggrieved by the conduct of the 1^st OP manufacturer in not respecting the terms and conditions of purchase that this complaint is filed.

6.         In order to ascertain whether the mobile phone in question is covered under any warranty we had to go through the documents. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice dated 21/1/2021. As per Ext.A1, the mobile is sold by the 3^rd OP herein, who is in Mumbai. O.P.2 also has confirmed the fact that purchase was made from a dealer in Mumbai.

OP1 filed proof affidavit and marked 3 documents. Ext.B3, by its description, is the warranty card with the terms and conditions as applicable to the phone purchased by the complainant. It is shown on the front page of Ext.
B3 that the warranty is valid only for India.

7.         Opposite party 1 contented that complainant himself had admitted that the phone is manufactured overseas. We do not find any merits in this contention of the 1^st O.P. A perusal of the statements made by the complainant in paragraph 3 of the complaint is the contemplation of a scenario wherein the pleadings of the 1^st O.P., per-chance be held to be true. Said statement cannot be held to an admission of the contentions raised by the 1^st OP.  Hence contention of the 1^st O.P. that the complainant has admitted that the phone is manufactured overseas will not hold water.

8.         As already stated supra, Ext.B3 produced and marked by the 1^st OP manufacturer does not in any manner show that the said phone is manufactured overseas. Therefore we hold that the mobile phone of the complainant is under the warranty provided by 1^st OP.  

            Issue No.2

9.         In view of the findings in Issue No.1 we hold that the 1^st OP has shirked their liability under Ext.B3 warranty conditions.

             Issue No. 3   

10.       Sole objection of the 1^st OP in dealing with the defect of the mobile phone is that it was an overseas product. But thereon, documents failed to substantiate their case.  Ext.A1 is the tax invoice issued by the dealer in India.

11.       A perusal of the pleadings combined with the documentary evidence goes to unearth an unfair trade practice practiced by the 1^st OP. They use the 2^nd OP to sell their products in India. When a defect is reported they refuse to provide warranty services under the guise of overseas manufacture. Thus the 1^st OP stands to gain illegal profits by refusing repairs under warranty conditions to honest, legitimate and deserving consumers. This is nothing short of cheating and fraud perpetrated upon unsuspecting consumers.

12.       Therefore we hold that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st OP.

Issue Nos.4 &5

 13.      In view of the findings in Issues stated supra, the complainant is entitled to the following  reliefs:  

1)         The complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.1,15,990/- with interest @10% from `             21/1/2021 till the date of repayment.

2)         The complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for deficiency in service in not carrying our repairs under warranty conditions.

3)         The complainant is entitled to a compensation of  Rs. 2,00,000/- for unfair trade practice undertook by the 1^st O.P.

            4)         The complainant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

5)         The aforesaid 4 orders shall be complied by the 1^st OP within 45 days of receipt of a copy of this order failing which they shall pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month or part thereof from the date of this order till the date of final payment.

            6)         No liability is cast on  OPs 2 & 3.

Pronounced in open court on this the 5^th  day of February,  2024.  

                                                                                         Sd/-                                                                                      

                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                        President

                                                          Sd/-    

   Vidya.A

                       Member        

        Sd/-                                              Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                          Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1   - Copy of tax invoice dated 21/1/2021  

Ext.A2  –  Printout of e mail communication dated 8/2/2022    

Ext.A3(a) & (b)   - Lawyers notice and postal receipts    

Ext.A4  - Reply notice dated 8/3/2022    

Ext.A5  – Copy of  lawyers notice dated 19/3/2022

Ext.A6 (a) to (c)  –  Copy of  Lawyers notice dated 25/3/2022, postal receipts & Postal

                                  acknowledgment

Ext.A7  - Reply notice dated 5/4/2022

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

Ext.B1 – Copy of Power of attorney  

Ext.B2 – Copy of Ext.A7

Ext.B3  – Copy of warranty card     

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

 Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:   Nil   

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.