Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/16/2017

D.Dastagiri, S/o Hussain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its authorized signatory - Opp.Party(s)

Badri Sekhar Babu

19 Jan 2018

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                Filing Date: 22-03-2017                                                                                                               Order Date: 19-01-2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                       Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

FRIDAY THE NINTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

 

C.C.No.16/2017

Between

D.Dastagiri, S/o. Hussain, Muslim,

Aged about 35 years, Carpenter,

Residing at D.No. 4-58, Ullipatteda,

M.R.Palli, Tirupati..                                                                             … Complainant

 

And

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

Located at A-25, Ground Floor,

Front Tower, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate,

New Delhi.

 

2. The Manager, Muthoot Finance Ltd.,

AIR-Bye Pass Road Branch,

AIR-Bye Pass Road, M.R.Palli Circle,

Tirupati, Chittoor District.

 

3.  The Head Service Men,

Authorized Service Center for Samsung India Electronics Ltd.,

Located at # 10, Central Park, Ground Floor, Tilak Road,

Tirupati, Chittoor District.                                                    … Opposite parties

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 05.01.2018 and upon perusing the complaint, written version, written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri. B.Sekhar Babu, counsel for the complainant and Sri. A. Suresh, counsel for the opposite party No.1, Sri. P. Anand, counsel for the opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.2 is remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed by the complainant under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties  to replace the SAMSUNG GALAXY J2 GOLD MOBILE PHONE  in the place of defective mobile phone or to refund the cost of the mobile phone of Rs.7,339/- with interest at 24 percent per annum from the date of the purchase till realization, to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation amount of Rs.20,000/-  towards mental agony and  loss of work to the complainant  and to pay costs of the complaint.

       2. The brief facts of the case are:   the complainant purchased the Samsung Galaxy J2 Gold Mobile Phone for Rs.7,339/- from the opposite party No.2 under “ZIL” Scheme through loan which is manufactured by the opposite party No.1 on 06.08.2016  and the said mobile got one year warranty. The complainant further submits that being a carpenter the mobile phone is very much essential for him to attend his duties and also he loaded some models of furniture in the said mobile in order to show to his customers. The complainant further stated that in the first week of December 2016 the above said mobile phone started giving trouble, hence he approached the 2^nd opposite party and with the instructions of the 2^nd opposite party the complainant approached 3^rd opposite party which is the Samsung Authorized Service Centre. After checking the above said mobile the 3^rd opposite party gave the estimation slip for Rs.2829/-  to repair the said mobile and they have charged Rs.100/- for issuing the estimation bill.

      The complainant further submits that, he requested the opposite party No.3 to repair the said mobile phone with free of cost as the said mobile is having one year warranty. But the 3^rd opposite party refused to repair the same or to replace the new mobile in the place of defective mobile. Hence in the absence of the mobile phone complainant lost so many work orders as he is a carpenter. Hence he lost the income because of the defective mobile. Hence the complainant caused a legal notice on 25.12.2016 calling upon the opposite parties to replace the new mobile phone in the place of defective one or to return the cost of the mobile. But after receipt of the said notices the opposite parties neither comply nor given any reply to the said notice which is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the opposite parties as they sold the defective phone to the complainant. Hence he filed the present complaint.

        3.The opposite party No.1 came in to appearance and filed the written version by denying the allegations made in the complaint and submitted that the complainant has to establish the purchase of the said mobile phone on 06.08.2016 and further submits that they are not the party of the “ZIL” scheme issued by the Muthoot  Finance Limited i.e. opposite party No.2.  Hence the complainant is not the consumer of them and also the complainant has to establish his case i.e. he has a carpenter and he is in very much need of the mobile phone to attend his duties and also the opposite party No.1 further contended that the complainant brought the handset to the Authorized Service Centre and at the time of inspection, it was found that the display and the touch screen were separated which clearly indicates that because of the mishandling of the handset  by the complainant only the damage would have happened which is beyond the manufacturing defect hence he has to pay for the spare parts and service charges. But the complainant refused to hand over the mobile phone or to pay the money for the repair charges of the phone and they are ready to demonstrate that the damage is due to mishandling of the complainant, hence the complainant is failed to prove his case the damage was caused due to manufacturing defect. Because negligence of the complainant only the mobile phone was damaged hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no manufacturing defect against the opposite party No.1.

        4. The opposite party No.3 filed the written version by denying the allegations made in the complaint and further admitted that the complainant approached their service centre on 23.12.2016 by complaining the defects in the cell phone, and their technicians properly checked the mobile and found that due to mishandling of the complainant the display internally cracked  and the display screen and LCD was separated which will not cover under warranty and same was communicated to the complainant, the complainant also agreed for the same and asked the estimation bill for repair charges, hence they issued the estimation bill.  After receiving the estimation bill the complainant left without handing over the mobile to their service centre which clearly shows that the said problem was arose in the mobile phone because of the mishandling of the complainant only. The opposite party No.3 further stated that the complainant failed to hand over the mobile for effecting  the repairs after taking the estimation bill and also the said mobile is not having the manufacturing defect and the complainant was making all false allegations against them as they are ready to do service to the mobile. But the complainant failed to take the steps to repair the mobile and gave false legal notice to this opposite party, but after receipt of the said legal notice the technicians of the opposite party No.3 contacted the complainant through phone but the complainant gave a reply that due to the instigation of his friend he issued legal notice and he promised that he could not file the complaint before the forum.  Hence the opposite party further submits that they are ready to do the service in the said mobile and also there is no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

        5. After receipt of the notices the opposite party No.2 remained absent and set exparte.

       6. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex: A1 to A5 were marked on

behalf of him. On behalf of the opposite party No.1 one Anindya Bose, S/o. A K Bose, Deputy General Manager(CS), resident of Gurgoan, filed his evidence on affidavit and on behalf of the opposite party No.3 one M. Ramakrishna, S/o. M. Balaramaiah, Authorized Service Person,  Tirupati filed his evidence on affidavit and no document were marked on behalf of the opposite parties. Both the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 3 filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

       7. Now the points for consideration are:-

              (i)  Whether the mobile phone purchased by the complainant is defective in nature and there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties towards the complainant?           

             (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?        

             (iii)  To what Relief?

                     8.Point No (i):-  The case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the opposite party no.1 through opposite party no.2 on 06.08.2016 under Ex:A1 by paying Rs.7,339/- and it was having one year warranty period and further contended that in the first week of December 2016 he was observed the defect in the cell phone and approached the opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 directed the complainant to get it rectified in the Samsung service centre i.e. opposite party no.3.  Hence he approached the opposite party no.3 on 23.12.2016 the service agent was informed and gave an estimation bill for Rs.2829/- for effecting the repairs. The counsel for the complainant further contended that the opposite party no.3 refused to repair the same with free of cost even though the defect was arose within the warranty period of 1 year. Hence he caused a legal notice on 25.12.2016 under Ex:A4,  but after receipt of the notice they failed to repair the same which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.

                   The counsel for the opposite party no.1 has contended that the complainant has to establish the purchase of the cell phone of Samsung Galaxy J2 Gold for Rs.7339/- under “ZIL” scheme issued by the opposite party no.2 and also stated that the defect would have occurred because of the negligence and mishandling of the complainant.  Hence the warranty will not applies in such a cases and also stated that in condition No.13 under Ex:A2 “defect caused by customer negligence, tampering shall avoid the product warrant”. In the present case also the damage was occurred because of the negligence of the complainant only, hence the warranty will not apply. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part as complained by the complainant.

                   The counsel for the opposite party no.3 admits that the complainant approached them on 23.12.2016 and their technicians properly attended for repair and found that due to mishandling of the complainant only the display was cracked and touch and LCD was separated. Hence it is not covered under warranty and same was revealed to the complainant and the estimation slip i.e. Ex:A3 for repair was also issued to the complainant.  But the complainant left without handing over the mobile to the service centre, it clearly shows that the said problem arose due to mishandling of the complainant only. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part as they are ready to service the cell phone on paid basis and prayed this Forum to dismiss the complaint against them.

                     By perusing the documents filed by both the parties it clearly shows that, as per Ex:A1 the invoice shows that the complainant has purchased the cell phone manufactured by opposite party no.1 from opposite party no.2 under “ZIL” scheme and also the said mobile phone got warranty period of one year and also there is no dispute that the complainant approached  the opposite party no.3 for the service of the cell phone which was found defective within period of three months of the purchase and also as per Ex:A3 dt: 23.12.2016 it clearly shows that the opposite party issued estimation slip for the repair charges of the said mobile. But as per the contention of the opposite parties 1&3 that the said defect was arose because of the mishandling of the complainant. Hence the warranty condition will not apply in this particular case, but as per Ex:A3 in the estimation slip it was clearly mentioned that in the subject column “ this has response to the handset received by us being model no. serial no in this regard we would like to inform you that, has because defective”. This itself clearly shows that the cell phone is defective in nature. Except the mere allegation, the opposite parties no.1 and 3 failed to show that defect would have happen only on account of the negligence of the complainant only.

                    The complainant has not purchased the cell phone for pleasure and there is also no reason to hold that the complainant has unnecessarily complaining the defect in the cell phone. If really it would have happened the opposite party have demonstrated and shown that the defect would have occurred due to mishandling of the complainant but the opposite party has failed to prove the same. The opposite party no.2 which acts as an agent to sell the cell phones to its customers under “ZIL” scheme kept silent even after receipt of the notices issued by the forum which clearly shows that the interest shown at the time of promoting the business will not show at the time of rendering services to their customers. The opposite parties miserable failed to prove that the defect was occurred due to mishandling of the complainant. As the defect was occurred within the warranty period of one year and hence the opposite parties are bound to repair the same with free of cost but they failed do the same and also in order to get wrongful gain they thrown blame on the complainant which is nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 as they sold defective cell phone to the complainant. Hence this point is answered against the opposite parties 1 and 2.  

                      9.Point No(ii):-   It is contended that in the absence of the mobile phone the complainant lost work orders as he has a carpenter by profession and he lost income of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and loss of work but he has not filed any documentary proof that he lost the work orders. Hence it cannot be considered. Hence it is reasonable to grant Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in  service on part of the opposite parties and also as per Ex:A1 it clearly shows that the complainant purchased the cell phone for Rs.7339/- and he approached the opposite party no.3 for the repair of the same on 23.12.2016 hence the complainant is entitled for the cost of the mobile of Rs.7339/- with interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of the repair i.e. 23.12.2016 and also the complainant is entitled of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the litigation expenses. 

          10.Point (iii):-   In view of our discussions on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties, hence the complaint is allowed.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to replace the new mobile in the place of defective mobile or to refund the cost of the mobile of Rs.7,339/- (Rupees seven thousand three hundred and thirty nine only) as prayed by the complainant along with interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of the repair i.e. on 23.12.2016. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation expenses. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to comply with the order within six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the above said compensation amount of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) shall also carry interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of the complaint till realization. The claim against opposite party No.3 is dismissed.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 19^th day of January, 2018.

            Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-             Lady Member                                                                                                 President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: D.Dastagiri (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Anindya Bose (Evidence Affidavit filed).

RW-2: M. Ramakrishna (Chief/ Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	True copy of Retail Invoice bill No.24804 issued by the 2nd opposite party for purchase of GALAXY J2 GOLD MOBILE PHONE along with scheme circular. Dt: 06.08.2016.
	Warranty Card in original.
	Primary estimation letter given by the 3rd opposite party in original.             Dt: 23.12.2016.
	Office copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party with postal receipts (3) in original.
	Postal acknowledgement cards (2) in original from opposite parties.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

NIL

                         Sd/-

                                                                                                             President

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant, 

                  2) The Opposite parties 1 to 3.