Judgment : Dt.5.12.2017

Shri S. K. Verma, President.

            This is a complaint made by one Sri Rittwik Ghatak, son of Goutam Ghatak, by faith Hindu, residing at ‘Skip Monee’, 407, Panchanan Tala, Brahmapur, Southend, P.S.-Bansdroni, Kolkata-700 096 against Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., having office at 10A, OC Ganguly Sarani, Lala Lajpat Rai Sarani, Kolkata-700 020, OP No.1, Skyline Communication, having office at Garia Main Road, Opp. Sitala Mandir, Kolkata-700 084, OP No.2 and S-Care, authorized Samsung Service Centre, having office at 51B, Garcha Road, Kolkata-700 019, OP No.3, paying for removing the defects in the hand set without charging any amount, replacing the handset with new handset and returning the charges of Rs.16,686/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant purchased a mobile handset being Samsung A8, S-A800I, having IMEI No.IM0024901, from the OP No.2, after paying total consideration of Rs.31,000/-. This mobile worked normally till 12.4.2016. Suddenly Complainant found that the display of his handset was not working and it became completely black. On this Complainant visited Samsung authorized Service Centre namely OP No.3, who informed Complainant after inspection that the cause of such black out basically is a liquid damage otherwise the hand set could not have been damaged. After contacting the customer care executive Complainant could know that he will have to pay charges of such nature of damage. Thereafter on 15.4.2016, Complainant deposited the handset with OP No.3 who gave for repairing charges of Rs.10,500/-. They assured the Complainant that this is the maximum expense that may be incurred. Thereafter, OPs asked the Complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.500/- as advance and Complainant made such deposit. When Complainant asked for challans, they provided only a hand-written manual advance slip. Thereafter OPs told Complainant to collect the handset on the very next day. When Complainant reached the office of OP No.3 he learnt that his phone was not repaired as per time schedule. OP No.3 informed him to come later on. Again Complainant went on 18.4.2016 when he was informed that his handset has not yet been repaired.

On this Complainant became tensed and irritated. On 18.4.2016, Complainant received a call from Samsung and he was informed that a further sum of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- will have to be paid by him. Complainant having no other alternative lodged a telephonic complaint through Samsung Customer Care Team and having endless follow up, a lady named Priti Jadav claiming herself calling from Customer Care Service Centre called Complainant on 22.4.2016 and heard the grievances of the Complainant. She gave a reference No. being 8478703288 and asked Complainant to send a soft copy of the hand-written manual advance slip in a small white paper cutting which was provided to him by Samsung service centre. Complainant sent the same and the lady assured to take it up with senior management. Complainant asked them to change the handset there was no fault of the Complainant. Again, the lady called the Complainant and told that he will have to pay a sum of Rs.16,686/- as repair fees. Complainant became totally tired on the attitude of the customer care service centre. Thereafter on 6.6.2016 again the same problem resurfaced. Complainant had no other alternative than to go to the same trauma and succumbed to the unresolved demands of the customer service centre for repairing charges. Further Complainant stated that he belongs to a middle class family and he invested Rs.48,000/- in the handset which did not last even one month. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP No.1 filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. OP No.1 has stated that the manufacturing defect cannot be determined on the simpliciter oral submission of the Complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. Complainant miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing defects. Further, OP No.1 has stated that Complainant is not entitled to any compensation as prayed by him. OP No.1 has referred certain decisions. Thereafter, OP No.1 has denied every paragraph of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            OP No.2 & 3 did not file written version and contest the case and so the case is heard ex-parte against them.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OP No.1 filed questionnaire and Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply.  Against this OP filed evidence to which Complainant filed questionnaire and OP filed affidavit-in-reply.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that the Complainant has prayed for repair of the handset or replacing with new handset and also return of Rs.16,686/-. In order to prove the allegation Complainant has filed tax invoice dt.21.12.2015 which reveals that Complainant paid Rs.31,000/- for purchasing the handset and he could not use the handset for about a year.

            On perusal of the written version, affidavit-in-chief and questionnaire, it appears that OP No.1 simply has stated that the defects could not be ascertained only by oral submission and it has to be done through test report. Admittedly, the handset which Complainant purchased was within warranty period and Complainant approached the service centre on many occasions which is clear from the record and also from the documents filed.

            Further, it appears that OP No.2 and 3 did not contest this case even after service of notice upon them. This not contesting suggests that how much OP No.2 & 3 are negligent and intentionally disobeyed the process of the Court.

            Accordingly, by not contesting the allegation of the complaint, they made themselves liable for the grievances of the Complainant and it was their obligation to make the handset in working condition which they failed. So, it is clear that OP No.1 being manufacturer in league with OP No.2 & 3 made the customer/ consumer suffer despite purchasing the handset after paying Rs.31,000/-.

           Accordingly, we are of the view that there are sufficient materials on behalf of the Complainant to establish that he suffered at the hands of the OPs and as such OPs are liable to repair the handset of the Complainant without any charge because the handset was within warranty period. If the OPs fail to make the repair, they will have to replace the handset and if they do not replace they are liable to return Rs.31,000/- which they took from the Complainant as price of the handset. OPs are also bound to refund Rs.16,686/- to the Complainant, which they charged for repair, but did not repair the handset. In addition, they are liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Hence,

ordered

            CC/63/2017 and the same is allowed on contest against OP No.1 and ex-parte against OP No.2 & 3. OPs are directed to repair the handset of the Complainant within one month of this order, in default they are directed to replace the handset within another one month otherwise they are directed to refund Rs.31,000/- to the Complainant and also Rs.16,686/- within another one month with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-, in default the total amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.