Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/124/2018

Mr. B Jebaraja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics & Another - Opp.Party(s)

M/s P Srija

05 Mar 2020

ORDER

                                                                             Date of filing      : 19.03.2018

                                                                               Date of disposal : 05.03.2020

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.124/2018

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 05^TH DAY OF MARCH 2020

                                 

B. Jebaraja,

S/o. Mr. A. Bhaskar,

Flat No.4, CDS Chitrakoodam,

No.32 A, Cart Track Road,

Guindy,

Chennai – 600 032.                                                       .. Complainant.                          

..Versus..

 

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Manager,

(Regional Office), No.S L 14 B1,

Express Avenue, Whites Road,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.

 

2. Samsung Service Centre,

(TVS Electronics Pvt. Ltd.),

Represented by its Manager,

No.33, 1^st Floor,

Annai Indira Gandhi Road,

(Near Velachery Railway Station),

Velachery,

Chennai – 600 042.                                                ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant          : M/s. P. Srija & others

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party : M/s. V.V. Giridhar & others

2^nd opposite party                            : Ex-parte

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays the 1^st opposite party to replace the phone bearing IMEI NO.353408076584943 with a new one of the same model or alternatively, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, prays the 2^nd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice and prays the opposite parties 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and monetary loss with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that from Raag E Stores, No.27, Sayee Nagar, Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 092, he purchased Samsung Galaxy Note 5 smart phone, Gold colour, Dual Sim, 32 GB Storage, 4 GB RAM, 5.7 inch Screen and 16.0 Mega Pixel camera bearing IMEI No.353408076584943 for a sum of Rs.45,000/- through Ebay online shopping mart on 16.09.2015.   The complainant submits that within a short period, the said mobile phone started to develop some minor repair in the Power Button and was not working even inspite of careful use.  The complainant contacted the Customer Service repeatedly and handed over the phone for service to the 2^nd opposite party on 14.10.2017 in person vide complaint No.4247305862 and Samsung reference No.3702948179 was registered by the 1^st opposite party.   The complainant submits that after checking the phone, the 2^nd opposite party stated the cost for repairing the power Button would be Rs.16,251/- without any reason.   The complainant submits that on enquiry, the claim of the 2^nd opposite party is exorbitant and imaginary.  But there was no proper response from the Service Executives and the Employees of the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant submits that since there was no reply and the opposite parties  have not come forward to rectify the mistake and repaired the cell phone, the complainant issued legal notice dated:27.11.2017 which was received by the 1^st opposite party and sent reply dated:10.01.2018 and the notice to the 2^nd opposite party was returned as ‘No Such Person’.  The complainant submits that the 1^st opposite party sent an email stating that the mobile phone is ready for delivery after due repair.  But on repeated visit, it was found that repair was not carried out by the 1^st opposite party and the mobile phone was kept idle.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The 1^st opposite party states that the complainant purchased a mobile phone in the year 2015 and was using over 2 years without any complaint. During the month of October 2017, the complainant gave the mobile phone for service due to non-functioning of the Power Button.   The 1^st opposite party states that after due inspection of the mobile phone, it was found that the Power Button of the mobile phone got damaged due to improper usage and lot of scratches over the phone due to the rough usage.   The 1^st opposite party states that the Service Centre had agreed to provide service by replacing the Power Button allied parts.    The 1^st opposite party states that the Service Centre after due service of the mobile phone, informed the complainant to pay the said amount and to collect the mobile phone.   But the complainant without paying any amount towards service and cost of spare parts questioned about the charges and filed petition after petition to the CEO etc.  The 1^st opposite party states that claiming replacement of alternative relief and claiming the cost of the mobile phone with a compensation is unfair.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     Inspite of receipt of notice the 2^nd opposite party has not appeared before this Forum and hence, the 2^nd opposite party was set ex-parte.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 are marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the phone bearing IMEI No.353408076584943 with a new phone or alternatively, to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mental agony, monetary loss etc with cost as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The 2^nd opposite party after due service of notice not entered appearance and remained ex-parte.  The complainant and the 1^st opposite party filed their respective written arguments.   Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents. The complainant pleaded and contended that he purchased Samsung Galaxy Note 5 smart phone, Gold colour, Dual Sim, 32 GB Storage, 4 GB RAM, 5.7 inch Screen and 16.0 Mega Pixel camera bearing IMEI No.353408076584943 for a sum of Rs.45,000/- through Ebay online shopping mart on 16.09.2015 as per Ex.A1, copy of invoice is admitted.   Further the contention of the complainant is that within a short period, the said mobile phone started to develop some minor repair in the Power Button and was not working even inspite of careful use.   The complainant contacted the Customer Service repeatedly and handed over the phone for service to the 2^nd opposite party on 14.10.2017 in person vide complaint No.4247305862 and Samsung reference No.3702948179 was registered by the 1^st opposite party as per Ex.A2 is also admitted.    Further the contention of the complainant is that after checking the phone, the 2^nd opposite party stated the cost for repairing the power Button would be Rs.16,251/- without any reason.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.B1, the Estimation Confirmation of the 1^st opposite party reads as Rs.16,251/- but without any expert opinion and details of the manufacturing cost of spare parts etc.    

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that on enquiry the claim of the 2^nd opposite party is exorbitant and imaginary.   The 2^nd opposite party also has not stated anything about the manufacturing price of Power Button.    Hence, the complainant raised this issue; Ex.A1 to CEO, Samsung India as per Ex.A3 & Ex.A4, Copy of email communications.  But the complainant has not received any reply from the opposite parties including CEO regarding the demand of service charge of Rs.16,251/-.   Further the contention of the complainant is that since there was no reply and the opposite parties  has not come forward to rectify the mistake and repaired the cell phone, the complainant issued legal notice dated:27.11.2017 as per Ex.A5 for which, the 1^st opposite party issued reply dated:10.01.2018 as per Ex.B2 with untenable contentions suppressing the cost price of the Power Button and manufacturing price of the Power Button.   The service charge claimed by the opposite party is unwarranted and also imaginary and has not been properly explained proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party sent an email stating that the mobile phone is ready for delivery after due repair.  But on repeated visit, there was no repair carried out by the opposite party and kept the mobile phone idle.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this case claiming replacement of mobile phone or alternatively a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of the mobile phone with a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-.

8.     The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that admittedly, the complainant purchased a mobile phone in the year 2015 and was using over 2 years without any complaint and in the month of October 2017, the complainant given the mobile phone for service for non-functioning of the Power Button.   Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that after due inspection of the mobile phone it was found that the Power Button of the mobile phone got damaged due to improper usage and lot of scratches over the phone due to the rough usage.   But there is no iota of evidence in this case much less, expert evidence since the 1^st opposite party is an expert in the field of mobile phone.   Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the Service Centre has agreed to provide the service by replacing the Power Button and its allied parts and an estimation was given to the complainant as per Ex.B1, it is absolutely silent regarding the manufacturing the cost of the spare parts and the manner of collection of labour charges proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.    

9.     Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the Service Centre after due service of the mobile informed the complainant to pay the said amount and to collect the mobile phone.   But the complainant without paying any amount towards service and cost of spare parts questioned about the charges and filed petition after petition to the CEO etc.   But on a careful perusal of records, the 1^st opposite party has not stated anything about the reason for disclosing the cost of spare parts and other particulars and bluntly claiming a huge amount of Rs.16,251/- towards the cost of spare parts proves the unfair trade practice.   On the other hand, it is also clear from the records that the 1^st opposite party has not produced any document to prove that the mobile phone was duly repaired and serviced and kept ready for delivery.   The complainant specifically stated that the email intimation regarding the service and kept ready for delivery of mobile phone is utter false proves the deficiency in service.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that claiming replacement of alternative relief; claiming the cost of the mobile phone with a compensation is improper.   But it is very clear from the records that the 1^st opposite party without any basic reason claiming a huge amount towards repairing charges and kept the mobile phone idle for a long time without due service is proved in this case; which establishes the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to replace the  Samsung Galaxy Note 5 smart phone, Gold colour, Dual Sim, 32 GB Storage, 4 GB RAM, 5.7 inch Screen and 16.0 Mega Pixel camera bearing IMEI No.353408076584943 with a brand new one with the same model or alternatively, to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to replace the Samsung Galaxy Note 5 smart phone, Gold colour, Dual Sim, 32 GB Storage, 4 GB RAM, 5.7 inch Screen and 16.0 Mega Pixel camera bearing IMEI No.353408076584943 with a brand new one with the same model or alternatively, to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty five thousand only) and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant.

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 05^th day  March 2020. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                                           PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	16.09.2015	Copy of invoice of purchase of the phone
Ex.A2	14.10.2017	Copy of acknowledgement of service request from the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A3	01.11.2017	Copy of email communication between the complainant and the Senior Executive, Customer experience of the 1st opposite party
Ex.A4	02.11.2017	Copy of email communication between the complainant and the President and CEO, Samsung, India and Samsung Head Customer Service
Ex.A5	27.11.2017	Copy of legal notice vide ref No.KKU/MA/NF-01/01/2017 sent to the opposite parties 1 & 2 along with acknowledgment
Ex.A6	14.12.2017	Copy of legal notice vide ref No.KKU/MA/NF-01/01/2017 sent to the 2nd opposite party along with acknowledgement

 

1^ST OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  

Ex.B1	01.11.2017	Copy of estimation slip issued to the complainant
Ex.B2	10.01.2018	Copy of reply letter issued by 1st opposite party to complainant’s Advocate

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                                     PRESIDENT