Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/22/2018

Sri.P.T.Anandh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.K.B.Chandrappa

20 Oct 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:23.02.2018

DISPOSED  ON:20.10.2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:22/2018

 

DATED:  20^th OCTOBER 2018

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :   PRESIDENT                             B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT	P.T. Anand, Advocate, Age: 478 Years, Dharmashala Road, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.K.B. Chandrappa, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25-Tower, Mohan Co-operator Industries Estate, New Delhi-110044.   2. Proprietor, Jai Matadi Samsung Smart Saluza Complex, Vasavi Mahal Road, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.T.N. Ramesh, Advocate for OP No.1 and OP No.2 ex-parte)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to exchange the mobile or to refund Rs.2,800/- and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant is that, he has purchased Samsung mobile from OP No.2 on 18.08.2017 for Rs.2,800/-.  After one month from the date of purchase, some defects found in the said mobile, the complainant approached OP No.2 several times and demanded to give new set or to rectify the defects found in the handset within warranty period.  The complainant demanded the OP No.2 to return the amount as paid by him but, it went in vain.  Therefore, filed this complaint.

3.     After service of notice to the OPs, one Sri.T.N. Ramesh, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and filed version. OP No.2 placed ex-parte.   

According to the OP No.1, it is submitted that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, the same is pre-mature since the complainant failed to utilize their in-house service facility provided by them before approaching this Forum.  The complainant has not issued any notice to them or he has not come before OP No.2 to rectify the defects found in the mobile.  The complainant has straightaway filed this complaint before this Forum, on this ground alone, the complaint is to be dismissed.  When there is a warranty period, the complainant is at liberty to approach the service centre as well as the dealer and manufacturer for replacement.  In this case, the complainant has not approached the OPs to rectify the same, but the complainant has filed this complaint straightaway before this Forum and production of invoice copy as well as the oral allegation alone will not establish the complainant allegations, hence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.  The complainant is an Advocate by profession is not a technical personnel, as such he could not come to the conclusion that, the mobile is having manufacturing defect.  The Hon’ble National Commission held that, when the mobile is within the warranty period, the complainant is entitled for free service subject to compliance of warranty condition by the complainant.  If really, any issue exists in the mobile as per the allegations, why the complainant did not approach the service centre is not explained.  When any issue arose due to negligence act of customer and later device stopped from normal functioning.  Under these circumstances, the warranty is not applicable.  In fact, the warranty is given towards product performance and party cannot contend existence of warranty under all circumstances.  That apart as and when mobile become physically damaged, under these circumstances, warranty become void and the customer cannot demand free service or free replacement.  The complainant has failed to establish what defect has been found in the mobile and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-4 got marked.  OP No.1 has examined one Sri.H.M. Madhu, as  DW-1 and no documents have been produced and closed their side.

5.     Arguments heard.

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have sold the defective mobile to the complainant and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                Point No.1:- In Negative.

                Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, the complainant has purchased Samsung mobile hand set from OP No.2 for Rs.2,800/- on 18.08.2017.  After using the same for one month, there was some defects found in the hand set.  According to the complainant, he has approached the OPs somany times for rectification of the defects found in the mobile hand set.  But, the OP No.2 has refused to solve the problems found in the hand set.  The OP No.1 filed version stating that, the complainant has not followed the procedure and rules as contemplated under law.  When the customer purchased any goods i.e., mobile or any vehicle from the concerned dealer, if any defects found in the mobile or vehicle within the warranty period, the customer has to approach the dealer or service provider for rectification of the same.  Here the case is on hand that, the complainant has purchased one mobile and there was a defects found with it within one month from the date of its purchase.  But, the complainant has not approached the dealer within the warranty period for replacement or return the money.  But in his complaint, the complainant has stated that, he has approached the OP No.2 somany times and requested for replacement or return of the amount.  The OPs have taken a contention in the version that, the complainant has violated the procedure and law.  Suppose any defects found in the mobile within the warranty period, he has to demand the dealer or manufacturer for replacement of the same or to return the amount.  Here the complainant never issued legal notice or any notice to the OPs demanding to return the amount or replacement of the defective mobile hand set.  The complainant has submitted his arguments that, the complainant has approached the OPs so many times before OP No.2 for exchange or replacement or return the amount.  But the OP No.2 has not taken any care for it.  The Advocate for OP argued that, the complaint filed by the complainant is pre-mature one.  If any defects found in the mobile within the warranty period, he has got every right to issue notice or to demand them to return the amount or replacement of the mobile.  But here the case on hand is that, the complainant never issued any notice to them demanding any claim before it.

9.     We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and the version and affidavit OP No.1.  No doubt the complainant has purchased the Samsung mobile hand set from OP No.2 as per Ex-A-1 and the complainant also produced mobile cover, the same has been marked as Ex.A-2, Ex.A-3 is the contents card and Ex.A-4 is the Xerox copy of net contents card.  There is no dispute between the parties that, the complainant has purchased the mobile handset from OP No.2.  The defects found within one month from the date of purchase, but the complainant has not issued any notice to the OPs stating that there is a defect in the mobile handset.  But the complainant has simply stated in the complaint that, he approached the OP No.2 demanding to replace the handset or to return the money by orally, but the complainant has not produced any piece of paper before this Forum to show the same.  According to the OPs, the complaint is a pre-mature.  Before filing the complaint, the complainant has to approach the OPs.  If the OPs fails to solve the problems found in the mobile, then only, the complainant has got every right to approach this Forum for redressal.  As per the documents, version and affidavit, it clearly shows that, the complainant has not approached the OPs requesting them to solve the problems in the handset.  Hence, the complainant is at liberty to approach the OPs in proper way for solving the problems found in the handset.  If the OPs fails to solve the problems, then only, the complainant has got right to approach this Forum.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as negative to the complainant.

          10. Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

 

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the OPs first and then come before this Forum for relief.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 20/10/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

           

           

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  H.M. Madhu by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Original tax invoice dated 18.08.2017
02	Ex-A-2:-	Mobile cover
03	Ex-A-3:-	Net contents card
04	Ex.A-4:-	Xerox copy of net contents card

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**