View 5012 Cases Against Samsung
View 5012 Cases Against Samsung
M/s.Ratnakar Kini filed a consumer case on 23 May 2018 against Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd, in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is CC/16/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 31 May 2018.
Complaint presented on: 29.09.2015
Order pronounced on: 23.05.2018
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd 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 23rd DAY OF MAY 2018
C.C.NO.16/2016
Mr.Ratnakar Kini,
No.16-U, 4th Main Road,
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.
….. Complainant
..Vs..
1.Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd (Head Office),
Rep. by its Managing Director,
2nd ,3rd & 4th 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,
1st Floor, 1741, SV Towers,
18th Main Road,
Anna Nagar,
Chennai – 600 040.
3.Kamala Kannan,
Hitech Solutions,
Samsung Authorized Service Center,
1st Floor, 1741, SV Towers,
18th 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 1st Opposite Party : M/s. V.V.Giridhar, P.Suresh, K.Senthil
Counsel for 2nd & 3rd 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 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party and the 3rd opposite party is the employee of the 2nd 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 2nd opposite party for service. The 3rd opposite party who is the employee of the 2nd 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 3rd 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 2nd 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 1st opposite party manufactured defective mobile and coupled with mishandling of the 3rd opposite party resulted the phone was not functioning. Only to wriggle out from the responsibility, the 3rd opposite party shifted the blame on the complainant. Due to manufacturing of the defective mobile and due to negligent act of the 3rd 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 1st 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 1st opposite party by their e-mail dated 31.03.2015 had informed the complainant that as he had allowed the 3rd 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party and the 3rd opposite party is the employee of the 2nd 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 2nd opposite party for service and the 3rd 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 3rd 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 2nd 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 2nd opposite party unauthorized persons handled the mobile and therefore warranty is not applicable to service the product and hence the 2nd 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 1st 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 1st opposite party said that unauthorized person or third party tampered the mobile. How the 3rd 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 1st opposite party. Further, it is very easy to allege that the 3rd party has tampered the mobile without any evidence. In this case also no evidence adduced by the 3rd 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 2nd opposite party service centre has not been disputed by the 1st opposite party. In such circumstances there is no, need for the complainant to give the mobile to the 3rd party and further we accept that the complainant gave the mobile only to the 2nd 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 1st 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 1st 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 2nd & 3rd 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 2nd & 3rd opposite parties who is the authorized service centre of the 1st 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 23rd 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 2nd
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 1st opposite party
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1st OPPOSITE PARTY :
….. NIL ……
MEMBER – I PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.