Date of Filing 19.03.2021

                                                                                                             Date of Disposal: 25.03.2024

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                          …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                                                                ……MEMBER-I

               THIUR.P.MURUGAN, M.Com, (ICWA), BL.,                                                                     ……MEMBER-II

RBT/CC.No.76/2024

THIS MONDAY, THE 25^th DAY OF MARCH 2024

Mr.P.T.Geotom, Advocate,

300/183, 2^nd Floor,

Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai -600 001.                                        ......Complainant.

                                                                                   //Vs//

1.Samsung India Electronics Private Limited,

    Rep. by its Managing Director,

    Registered Office, 6^th Floor,

   DLF Centre,

   Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110 001.

2.Samsung India Electronics Private Limited,

    Rep. by its Regional Manager,

    Regional Office,

    No.1, Whites Road, Express Estate,

    Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.

3.The Authorized Service Center,

   Rep. by it Manager,

   30/11, 2^nd Line Beach,

   George Town, Chennai 600 001.                                                  ……Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                                 : M/s.S.Sathia Chandran, Advocate.

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party                        : M/s.P.Suresh, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3                : Exparte.

This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.75/2021 and transferred to this commission by the administrative order in RC.No.J1/3145/2023 dated 09.11.2023 of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as RBT/CC.No.76/2024 and this complaint coming before us finally on 11.03.2024 in the presence of M/s.S.Sathia Chandran, counsel for the complainant  and M/s.P.Suresh, counsel for the 1^stopposite party and opposite parties 2 & 3 were set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY Tmt. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in selling a defective mobile phone along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to replace the defective device with a new defect-free device along with Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards cost.  

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. Aggrieved by the defective mobile phone supplied by the opposite parties the present complaint has been filed.

3. Complainant on account of his profession bought a Samsung S9 + mobile, Model No.SM-G965FZKDINS by way of e-commerce store in the name and style of “Flip Kart” on 29.09.2019.  The mobile phone was delivered on 01.10.2019. During Covid-19 he was using the same. However, from 22.12.2020 the complainant could not make or receive calls due to non-receptibility of the network signals through both the SIM card/Networks.  Though several times the complainant switched off and on, the problem persisted.  On 23.12.2020 the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party for rectification of the problem for which the Service Engineer of the 3^rd opposite party informed that the Integrated Circuit i.e., IC got snapped and has to be rectified and an amount of Rs.23,653/- was given as estimation for the same.  Thus aggrieved the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties for which the 1^st opposite party immediately contacted and wanted to know about the complainant’s requirements.  When the complainant informed about his demand for replacement 25% discount was offered but on 27.01.2021 they issued a reply notice stating that the PBA product got damaged only due to mishandling of the complainant.  When a rejoinder was sent by the complainant stating that the PBA damage was only due to the manufacturing defects, the opposite party stated that the mobile phone was out of warranty period and out rightly rejected the claim for free repair or refund or replacement. However, offered 25% discount on the repair cost which was rejected by the complainant.  Thus stating that the terms and conditions of the warranty offered by the opposite parties did not exempt a faulty PBA from warranty the present complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the parties along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to replace the defective device with a new defect-free device along with Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards cost.  

The crux of the defence put forth by the 1^st opposite party:-

4. The 1^st opposite party filed version admitting the purchase of mobile phone by the complainant. However, they denied that it was supplied with some manufacturing defects.  It was submitted by them that even the complainant himself admits that the mobile was working in a good condition until 22.12.2020.  It was further stated that the subject matter of the mobile phone was out of warranty and hence the complainant bound to pay the cost for replacing the PBA Kit as the fault was neither a manufacturing defect nor deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The offer by the opposite parties for 25% discount on the estimated cost of repair was also rejected by the complainant.  In the reply notice it has been categorically mentioned that at any cost replacement of the unit would not be done and only the repairs could be done for the unit even if it was in the warranty period. The complainant approached the Service Centre after one year and 3 months from the date of purchase of the hand set. Thus stating that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

5. On the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A8 were submitted. The 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit and documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were submitted.  Though notices were served to the opposite parties 2 & 3 they did not appear to file any written version and hence they were called absent and were set exparte on 28.10.2021 for non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per the statue.

Points for consideration:-

1)    Whether the allegations as to manufacturing defects in the Samsung S9 + mobile, Model No.SM-G965FZKDINS as alleged by the complainant against the opposite parties has been established by him successfully by admissible evidence?

2)    Whether the defects in the mobile phone could be rectified within the warranty terms and conditions?

3)    If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?

 Point No.1 & 2:-

6. Heard both learned counsels appearing for the complainant and the 1^st opposite party

7. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the product supplied to him was with inherent manufacturing defect and within 14 months of purchase no network was received.  It is his contention that the Life Span of the smart phone is 3 to 4 years.  However, in the present case it got worn out within 13 months of purchase.  Thus stating that the offer made by the opposite parties for 25% discount in the repair charges was not acceptable to him, he sought for the replacement of the product.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st opposite party argued that there is no warranty for the IC Kit to the mobile phone and thus stating that there is no manufacturing defects in the product and the product was out of warranty for free repair or replacement, the learned counsel sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

9. On perusal of the pleadings and material evidences it is seen that the product purchased on 29.09.2019 was functioning properly until 22.02.2020.  In the mean time there was no complaints made by the complainant with regard to non- functioning of the mobile phone.  Further on perusal of the warranty card it is seen that under the warranty conditions, warranty covers only the defects in products arising out of manufacturing or faulty workmanship and covers repair/replacement of parts.  It is also stated that the warranty period differs for parts and accessories and it has been provided that no warranty for certain parts /conditions/ type of product failures.  The warranty period given for mobile phone (GSM/CMDA/Wi/Fi Tablet)-Excluding by packed accessories was provided as 12 months and the warranty period for PBA was given only as 6 months.  Further for Galaxy Camera, Bluetooth Headsets and Battery warranty period was given as 12 months.  In the present case it is not in dispute that the defect occurred in Product Board Assembly (PBA).  As per the warranty condition the warranty period was only six months.  Hence it is made clear that the product defect was not covered under the warranty period as per the terms and conditions.

10. Now we are left with no other option but to arrive at a finding whether the complainant had successfully proved that the defect in the mobile phone was only a manufacturing defect entitling him for a replacement or free of cost repair.  Though it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that usually the mother board of a mobile phone has a lifespan of 3 to 4 years but in the present case it got worn out in 13 months, no documentary evidence was produced by him in respect of the same.  Also the mobile phone was also not inspected to find out how the integral kit got damaged. In the facts and circumstances, we answer the point accordingly holding that the complainant failed to prove that the defect caused to the mobile phone was only due to some inherent manufacturing defects in the mobile phone. 

Point No.3:-

As we have held above that the complainant failed to prove that the opposite parties had committed any deficiency in service, he is not entitled any relief from the opposite parties.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 25^th day of March 2024.

     -Sd-                                                     -Sd-                                                           -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                        MEMBER-I                                              PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the 1^st opposite party:-

      -Sd-                                                          -Sd-                                                   -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER-I                                      PRESIDENT