IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated, the 28^th day of June, 2024

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

             Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 236/2023 (Filed on 25.07.2023)

O  R  D  E  R

Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy A04 Smartphone from Bismi Home Appliances on 12.03.2023 by availing of financial assistance from Bajaj Finserve Limited. At the time of purchasing the Smartphone, the complainant paid ₹ 5000/- to the Bismi home appliances, and it was agreed to repay the balance amount in 7 monthly installments of ₹ 1606/- each. However after a few months the phone showed the complaint of pattern lock and the complainant entrusted the cell phone to the third opposite party for repair.  Though the third opposite party carried out the repair work, within three to 4 hours, the phone showed the same complaint. Then, the third opposite party changed the pattern lock. Due to the defect's recurrence, the lock pattern had to be changed twice. Now the phone has become defective and useless. So when the complainant approached Bismi Appliances and the third opposite party, they did not replace the phone with a new one. Hence, this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to replace the phone with a brand new one or to refund the price of the phone along with the compensation of ₹ 10,000/- and the cost of this litigation.

Upon notice from this commission, the first and second opposite parties appeared before the commission and filed separate versions. Despite receiving notice from this commission, the third opposite party did not care to appear before this commission or file version. Hence, the third opposite party is set as ex-Party.

The first opposite party filed version contending as follows:

The complainant had purchased a Samsung Smartphone on 12.03.2023 through a third party, Bismi Connect Private Limited. The complainant reported a handset issue; the service center diagnosed the set for repairs of the defect in the handset, which is denied as no such records, are available with the first opposite party, and the mobile phone is still subject to diagnosis. The complainant never submitted the Smartphone for inspection at the service center and demanded commercial solutions and compensation for the same. Without proper inspection, the service center cannot conclude the reason for the defects in the handset. Therefore, refund replacement of the handset is not covered under warranty terms and conditions.

The phone had no manufacturing defects within the warranty and post-warranty periods. When the phone was taken to the service center, the inspection was carried out for the phone, and out of a goodwill gesture, the service center offered estimated charges, but the complainant refused to accept the offer and was adamant only about the exchange of the handset. It is submitted in the version that the first opposite party is willing to carry out the necessary repairs and replacement of the parts strictly as per the terms and conditions of the warranty manual. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the first opposite party.

Version of the second opposite party is as follows:

The complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the first opposite party, according to her wish, after thoroughly inspecting the product. After the sale of the product, the after-sale services and warranty are provided by the manufacturer. The second opposite party is only a dealer of the product manufactured by M/s Samsung India and has never offered nor promised any after-sales services or warranty for the product in question. The complainant never contacted or approached the second opposite party after purchasing the product from the second opposite party. After purchasing the product, the correspondence was only with the complainant and the Samsung service centre. 

The complainant is now alleging a manufacturing defect on the product, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court already holds that the dealer is not liable in case of a manufacturing defect. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, and the complainant has not adduced any cogent evidence to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party to claim compensation from them.

The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibits A1 and A2. Sandeep Sahijwani, the Director of customer satisfaction of the first opposite party, filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibits B-1 and B-2. There is no documentary evidence from the side of the second opposite party.

We would like to consider the following points on the evaluation of the complaint version and evidence on record.

1. Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what are the reliefs and costs?

Point Nos. 1 & 2

The specific case of the complainant is that she purchased a Samsung Galaxy A04 Smartphone from Bismi Home Appliances on 12.03.2023. According to the complainant, the phone became defective due to the complaint of the pattern lock facility. However, the defect was rectified by the 3rd opposite party thrice the defect persisting. It is proved by Exhibit A1 tax invoice issued by the second opposite party that the complainant purchased a Samsung Smartphone Galaxy A04 on 12.03.2023. Exhibit A1 further proves that the complaint had paid ₹ 4800/- out of the total price of ₹ 12,999/-. Exhibit A2 is the tax invoice issued by the third opposite party to one  Vishnu Prakash for the service of the phone bearing model number A04 5FZCHINS. On going through exhibit A2, we can see that the third opposite party had charged ₹ 236/- as the labor cost for the service.

The first opposite party contended that the phone had no manufacturing defects. According to the opposite parties, when the phone was taken to the service, the inspection was carried out, and out of a goodwill gesture, the third opposite party offered estimated charges, but the complainant refused to accept the offer and was adamant only for the exchange of the handset. In version and proof affidavit the first opposite party submitted that they are willing to carry out the necessary repair works and replacement of the parts strictly as per the terms and conditions of the warranty manual.

Although the complainant alleged manufacturing defects, he did not adduce any expert evidence to support this claim. Without such expert evidence, we cannot conclude that the phone, manufactured by the first opposite party and sold by the second opposite party to the complainant, has an inherent manufacturing defect. However, it is evident from Exhibit A2 and the admission by the first opposite party that the third opposite party provided an estimate to the complainant for rectifying the phone's defects. Therefore, we hold that the phone has some defects that needed to be rectified under the warranty coverage. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case, and that the Consumer Protection Act being a benevolent legislation, we conclude that directing the first opposite party to rectify the phone's defects will serve the ends of justice.

In the result, we allow this complaint and pass the following order.

We hereby direct the first opposite party to rectify the defect of the Samsung Smartphone Galaxy A04 of the Complainant in good working condition within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

Considering the circumstances of the case, there is no order of cost and compensation. If not complied as directed to pay ₹ 12,999/- to the complainant.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28^th day of June, 2024

Sri. Manulal V.S, President             Sd/-

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                  Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

A1 -   Copy of taxable invoice from Bismi Connect dated 12.03.2023.

A2-    Copy of tax invoice from Samsung Authorized Service Centre dated 14.06.2023

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

B1 – Copy of Power of Attorney dated 01.01.2021

B2 – Copy of  Samsung warranty terms and condition.

By Order,

                                                                                                  Assistant Registrar