Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/16/2016

M/s.Ratnakar Kini - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M/s.K.Moorthy and Others

23 May 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  29.09.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  23.05.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

WEDNESDAY  THE 23^rd   DAY OF MAY 2018

 

C.C.NO.16/2016

 

 

Mr.Ratnakar Kini,

No.16-U, 4^th Main Road,

Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd (Head Office),

Rep. by its Managing Director,

2^nd ,3^rd & 4^th Floor, Tower C,

Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road,

Gurgoan Sector 43,

Gurgoan – 122 002.

 

2.Hitech Solutions,

Rep by its Manager,

Samsung Authorized Service Center,

1^st Floor, 1741, SV Towers,

18^th Main Road,

Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.

 

 

 

 

 

3.Kamala Kannan,

Hitech Solutions,

Samsung Authorized Service Center,

1^st Floor, 1741, SV Towers,

18^th Main Road, Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 24.02.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.K.Moorthy, S.R.Sundar,

                                                                   S.P.Mano Bharth, D.Raja Shekhar

 

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party                 : M/s. V.V.Giridhar, P.Suresh, K.Senthil

 

Counsel for 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties      : Ex – parte (on 06.09.2016)

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to replace with new mobile or refund the cost of the mobile and also to pay compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is a doctor working in Madras Medical College as Gastroenterologist. He purchased Samsung mobile during first week of December 2014  ordering through website Flip Kart. The said mobile was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party is the employee of the 2^nd opposite party.

          2. After four months of the purchase during usage the display of the mobile went blank screen, bluish in color and shut down automatically on 25.03.2015. The mobile has warranty at that time. Hence the complainant handed over the mobile to the 2^nd opposite party for service. The 3^rd opposite party who is the employee of the 2^nd opposite party received the mobile and attended the service and informed him that  the mother board of the phone is totally damaged and same has to be replaced. The 3^rd opposite party also informed him that the mother board was tampered in an unauthorized service center. This allegation is not correct. The complainant’s residence located 1200 meters away and two minutes walk from the 2^nd opposite party service centre. Hence, there is no necessity for the complainant to give the mobile unauthorized service centre and he had also not given the same.

          3. The 1^st opposite party manufactured defective mobile and coupled with mishandling of the 3^rd opposite party resulted the phone was not functioning. Only to wriggle out from the responsibility, the 3^rd opposite party shifted the blame on the complainant. Due to manufacturing of the defective mobile and due to negligent act of the 3^rd opposite party the mobile became useless. Therefore, the opposite parties 1 to 3 have committed deficiency in service and caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to replace with new mobile or refund the cost of the mobile and also to pay compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.   

 

 

 

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainant had approached the authorized service centre alleging that there was a problem in the mobile phone purchased by the complainant on verification of the mobile phone by the service centre, it was found that the mobile phone was handled  by an unauthorized person and the mobile phone was tampered by a third party with in the warranty period. Therefore as per the terms of the warranty having the complainant   allowed the third party to tamper the mobile he has to pay for the service to be provided.

          5. The 1^st opposite party by their e-mail dated 31.03.2015 had informed the complainant that as he had allowed the 3^rd party to tamper the mobile phone within the warranty period, the complainant had violated the warranty as a result the complainant is not entitled to be cover. The 1^st opposite party respectfully states that at no point of time they have refused to provide the service to the complainant. However, it was informed that as per terms of the warranty the 1^st opposite party is entitled to charge for the service. The complainant alleging that their mobile phone mother board was damaged due to the defective service done by the service centre by the 1^st opposite party and put the complainant into strict proof of the same. Hence this opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

           It is an admitted facts are that the complainant is a doctor working in Madras Medical College as Gastroenterologist and he placed an order on 03.12.2014 and made payment of Rs.14,000/- through Flip Kart.com and  purchased Samsung mobile under Ex.A1 invoice and the said mobile was manufactured  by the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is the  authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party is the employee of the 2^nd opposite party.

          8. The complainant’s case is that during the course of usage of the  mobile on 25.03.2015  after  four months of the purchase, the display of the mobile went blank screen, bluish in colour and shut down automatically  and since the mobile  has warranty the complainant handed over the mobile to the 2^nd opposite party for service and  the 3^rd opposite party his employee received the mobile and attended the service and informed that  the mother board of the phone is totally damaged and same has to be replaced on payment of charges and  the 3^rd opposite party also informed him that the mother board was tampered in a unauthorized service center  is not correct as his residence located 1200 meters away and within two minutes walk from the 2^nd opposite party service centre and hence, there is no necessity for the complainant to give the mobile unauthorized service centre and the mobile itself should have the manufacturing defect and the service person should have only mishandled the product and therefore the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.

          9. The 1st opposite party during arguments raised two objections that Flip Kart was not added as a party and before handing over the mobile to the 2^nd opposite party unauthorized persons handled the mobile and therefore warranty is not applicable to service the product and hence the 2^nd opposite party demanded charges and that was refused by the complainant and therefore this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.

          10. The Flip Kart is website is only a platform enables the Consumers to place order and purchase various companies products manufactured by them. The Flip Kart has no role with the quality of the products which was ordered by the Consumers. Hence, the contention of the 1^st opposite party that the said website has not been ordered as a party will no way affect the case of the complainant and such contention of him is rejected.

          11. It is not in dispute that on the date of handing over the product to the 2^nd opposite party to rectify the defects, the warranty is in force. The complainant handed over the product since the display went to blank screen, bluish in color and shut down automatically.  After receipt of the mobile for service the 2^nd opposite party sent Ex.A3 e-mail communication dated 31.03.2015 at page 3 of the documents. In the said mail he had stated that if the product is tampered within the warranty period, the warranty is not applicable and free service cannot be done and the customer has to bear the repair charges. In the written version also the 1^st opposite party said that unauthorized person or third party tampered the mobile. How the 3^rd party or unauthorized person tampered the mobile and due to the same which part of the mobile was damaged has not been stated in the above referred written version of the 1^st opposite party. Further, it is very easy to allege that the 3^rd party has tampered the mobile without any evidence. In this case also no evidence adduced by the 3^rd opposite party that the third party tampered the mobile.

          12. The statement of the complainant that his residence is located just 1200 meters and two minutes walk to the 2^nd opposite party service centre has not been disputed by the 1^st opposite party. In such circumstances there is no, need for the  complainant to give the mobile to the 3^rd party and further we accept that the complainant gave the mobile only to the 2^nd opposite party for service as soon as  the display went blank  on 25.03.2015. Hence, as discussed above we hold that the mobile manufactured by the 1^st opposite party is only having manufacturing defect and that is why the service person was unable to rectify the defect and being authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party he alleged that the mobile was given to a unauthorized service person and tampered. Therefore, it is held that the mobile is having manufacturing defect and the same was not rectified by the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties and hence we hold that the opposite parties 1 to 3 have committed deficiency in service

13. POINT NO:2

          The complainant paid a sum of Rs.14,000/- as per Ex.A1 . The mobile was unable to be rectified by the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties who is the  authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party/manufacturer. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the cost of the mobile from the opposite parties 1 to 3. Due to purchase of the defective mobile and the said mobile was also not rectified through the authorized person, the complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same, it would be appropriate to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.14,000/- (Rupees fourteen thousand  only) towards the cost of the mobile to the Complainant and also to pay  a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten  thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said cost of the mobile and compensation amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23^rd day of May 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 03.12.2014                   Invoice

 

Ex.A2 dated  NIL                    Service Registration Number issued by the 2^nd

                                                   opposite party

 

Ex.A3 dated 31.03.2015                   E-mail communication between the complainant

                                                   and the opposite parties

 

Ex.A4 dated 09.06.2015                   Legal notice from the complainant to opposite

                                                   parties with AD cards and Track Sheets

 

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     Warranty card issued by the 1^st opposite party

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                      ….. NIL ……

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT