DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 13th day of May, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya.A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K.,Member
Date of filing: 20/11/2019
CC/266/19
Deepu.M - Complainant
S/o Mohanarajan
Sree Sailam House,Melemurali,
Industrial Estate Post,Palakkad- 678 731.
( By Adv.Nimisha.K)
Vs
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd,
6th Floor, DLF Centre,Sansad Marg,
New Delhi- 110 001.
(By Adv.Santhosh Kumar & Manimangalathu Sameer Babu)
2. V-Care Mobitron, Samsung Service Centre, - Opposite Parties
Premise No.1 Ground Floor New Excelsior,
Fort – 400 001.
3. C M Enterprises,
CSI Shopping Complex,
Near Mission School Junction,
TB Road, Palakkad
(Op 2 & 3 Exparte)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya.A., Member
1.Brief facts of the complaint
The complainant is a regular customer of Samsung products and he purchased a Samsung Galaxy S8 Mobile from the 3rd opposite party shop on 11th May 2017 on payment of Rs.57,900/-. The complainant purchased the mobile as he was attracted by their video advertisement and the documents along with the mobile that it is ‘Water and dust resistive’.
On 29/09/2019 when the complainant saw a gold fish in a small rock pond in normal water, inorder to test the mobile specification as to whether it is ‘resistive of water’, he dipped the phone approximately 15cm below the water surface to take a snap. It was not getting screen click and he removed the phone immediately within 5 to 10 seconds. The screen of the mobile was found off. He immediately cleaned it with fresh water(bislery) and dried with clothes and sunlight.
He contacted the company personnel on the same day and was asked to switch on the mobile in SAFE MODE, which did not take place at all.
The complainant took the mobile to the service centre and they issued an estimation of Rs.38,800/- as repair cost. Because of the defect in the phone, he lost his valuable datas, photographs, electronic study materials and secured documents. The complainant requests the Commission to issue direction to the 1st opposite party to stop the fake video advertisements and issuing of misleading documents along with the product.
The complaint is filed to compensate the repair of the mobile or to provide a new mobile.
2. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. 1st Opposite party entered appearance and filed their version. Even after the receipt of notice, opposite parties 2 & 3 did not appear before the Forum and so they were set exparte.
3. 1st Opposite party admitted in their version about the complainant’s purchase of mobile phone manufactured by them from the 3rd opposite party on 11/05/2017 . They also admitted that on 30/09/2019, the complainant approached their service centre with a complaint of ‘phone dead’. Immediately the phone was checked by their service centre and found that water logged in to the unit and damaged the parts such as PBA,LCD etc. On checking the warranty details, it was found that warranty for the mobile phone was over and it could not be repaired free of cost. An estimation of charge for the repair was given to the complainant, but he did not agree and demanded free of cost repair and his complaint was closed.
The complainant himself admitted that he dipped his mobile in the water for taking photo and hence the reason for damage in the phone is very clear. The unit infact had only one year warranty and ‘water resistance’ does not mean water proof. It does not mean that the customer can use the mobile inside the water. In this case, warranty is not at all applicable because the nature of damage caused is physical damage happened from the side of the complainant and not due to any manufacturing defect or any other reason alleged in the complaint.
The complaint reported was duly attended by the service centre and there is no deficiency in service on their part. All the repairs outside the warranty will be done only on chargeable basis.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit in evidence and Ext A1 to A4 marked. (A4- subject to proof) 1st Opposite party filed proof affidavit and Ext B1 to B4 were marked. Evidence closed.
5. Main points to be considered.
1. Whether there is any Deficiency in Servie/ Unfair Trade Practice
on the part of the opposite parties ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
3. Reliefs and costs if any
Points 1
6. The purchase of Samsung Galaxy SM-G950FZKD mobile phone by the complainant from the 3rd opposite party shop on 11/05/2017 for Rs.57,900/- is admitted. The 1st opposite party also admitted in their version that on 30/09/2019, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party, their service centre with a complaint of ‘phone dead’ and on examination it was found that waterlogged into the unit and damaged the parts like PBA,LCD etc.
7 Complainant’s contention is that he purchased the mobile phone after seeing the video advertisement and the documents along with the mobile phone that the mobile is ‘water and dust resistive’. He further states that when he saw a gold fish in a small rock pond in normal water, inorder to test the mobile phone’s specification’ as to ‘resistive of water’ he dipped it approximately 15 cm below the water surface and tried to take a snap; but it was not getting clicked. So he immediately removed it within 5 to 10 seconds and the screen of the mobile was found off. As per the instructions in the document along with mobile, he washed his mobile with bislery water immediately and dried with clothes and sunlight.
8 In order to prove his contention, the complainant produced 4 documents. Ext A1, the Tax Invoice showing the purchase of mobile, for Rs.57,900/- Ext A2, QUICK START GUIDE showing the features of the mobile and instructions for usage and Ext A4(marked subject to proof in the absence of Section 65B certification under the Indian Evidence Act) showing the pictures of YouTube video Advertisement given on Samsung Galaxy S8 official introduction.
9 In Ext A2 under the heading “Maintaining water and dust resistance,” it is stated that the device may be damaged if water or dust enters the device and they have given the tips to prevent damage to the device and to maintain the water and dust resistant performance of the device. They advised not to immerse the device in water deeper than 1.5 M or keep it submerged for more than 30 minutes.
10. Here as per the complainant’s contention, he dipped the device approximately 15cm below the water surface in a pond in normal water. But the mobile was not getting clicked. So immediately he removed it within 5 to 10 seconds, but the screen was found off. He further contended that as per the directions issued by the opposite party along with the mobile, he immediately washed it with clean water which he kept with him as a safety measure and dried it with sunlight and cotton.
11. In Ext A2 it is clearly stated that “If the device is exposed to clean water, dry it thoroughly with a clean, soft cloth. If the device is exposed to other liquids, such as salt water, ionized water or alchoholic beverages, rinse it with clean water and dry it thoroughly with a clean, soft cloth. If you do not follow these instructions, the device’s performance and appearance may be affected”.
12. From the complaint, it is understood that the complainant had followed the instructions stipulated in the ‘Quick start guide’ given along with the mobile set. The 1st opposite party has no case that the defect occurred because of complainant’s fault in following their direction. Their contention is that ‘water resistance’ does not mean water proof and that also does not mean that a customer can use the unit inside the water as stated in the complaint. The phone got damaged because the water logged in to the unit and damaged the parts. They did not move any application before the Commission to cross examine the complainant in order to prove the veracity of their contention.
13. The complainant admits that the incident in which his phone got damaged happened after the completion of the warranty period. The 1st opposite party contended that since the warranty was over, the phone could not be repaired free of cost and they gave an estimation of repair charges which was not acceptable to the complainant and he insisted for free of cost repair. Further the nature of damage caused is physical damage which is not covered under warranty and the phone is free from any manufacturing defect.
14. From Ext A1, it is clear that the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 11/05/2017 and the incident in which the phone got damaged happened on 29/09/2019. As stated by the complainant in his affidavit, the one year warranty for repair offered by the manufacturer was already over at the the time of the incident. Since the product is out of warranty, the complainant is not entitled to get the phone repaired free of cost. The opposite parties were ready to rectify the defect on chargeable basis and they have given an estimation for the repair. Complainant’s demand for free of cost repair cannot be admitted as the warranty period is over. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
15. However the 1st opposite party is liable for the Unfair Trade Practice of giving false and misleading advertisements for inducing the sale. Misleading advertisement in relation to any product or service means an advertisement which.
i) Falsely describes such product or service.
ii) Give a false guarantee to, or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product or service or.
iii)Conveys an express or implied representation which if made by the manufacturer or seller or service provider thereof would constitute an Unfair Trade Practice or.
iv) Deliberately conceals important information.
16. Here Ext A2,(Quick start guide) in which the directions for usages are given and Ext A4, . (A4 marked subject to proof in the absence of S65B certification under the Evidence Act) the YouTube video advertisement given at the time of Samsung S8 official introduction, guarantees the mobile phone’s water resistant specification and the usage under water up to 1.5 meters for upto 30 minutes. Ext A2 clearly gives the directions after exposing it to clean water and other liquids. The complainant had followed these directions immediately after using the phone as per the complaint. The opposite parties have no case that the damage occurred because of the improper method followed by the complainant while using it under water. Opposite parties did not take any steps to examine the complainant or to disprove the contentions put forward by him.
17. So the opposite parties are liable for the Unfair Trade Practice of making statements which “falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model and for giving false guarantee to or is likely to mislead the consumers as to the nature, substance, quantity or quality of such product”.
Points 2 & 3
18. The complainant bought the product believing the advertisements and user guide which assures that the mobile is water resistive and guarantees its performance under water upto 1.5 meters for upto 30 minutes.
Since the product in question did not meet the standards put forward by the opposite parties, they are liable to compensate the complainant for the ‘Unfair Trade Practice’ committed by them.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.
We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the Unfair Trade Practice on their part and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial and other losses suffered by the complainant. The order shall be complied with by the opposite parties within 45 days of the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the order is not complied within 45 days the complainant shall be entitled to a solatium of Rs.250/-per month or part thereof , payable from the date of this order till date of final settlement of this order.
The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount . Any single party may pay the aforesaid amount and claim pro-rata share from other parties.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 13th day of May, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty.N.K
Member
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Retail Invoce bill No.S17/719 Dated 11/05/2017 issued by Opposite
party 3.
Ext.A2 - Photocopy of Acknowledgement of Service Request Dated 30/09/2019 &
Quick start guide issued along with the mobile handset.
Ext.A3 - Photocopy of Tax Invoice No.4291481966 Dated 30/09/2019 issued by
opposite party 2.
Ext. A4- Screenshot of Youtube advertisement of the product (Subject proof)
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Ext B1- Photocopy of Power of Attorney .
Ext B2- Service request acknowledgement(Jobcard) No 4291481966 Dated 30/09/2019.
Ext B3-(Series a & b) Photos of the mobile handset.
Ext B4- Warranty card
Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL
Cost: NIL
