DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 322 of 2022.

 

Dist. -West Tripura, Pin-799010...…..…..............................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

   (1). Satisfaction,

Represented by its Proprietor, 

At 142, Motor Stand Road, 

A.A. Road, Near Kaman Chowmuhani,

P.S.-East Agartala, Pin-799001,

Dist.-West Tripura.

 

(2). S.B. Electronics, (Samsung Authorized Service Centre),

H.G. Basak Road, Melarmath, Agartala, 

P.S.-West Agartala, Pin-799001,

Dist.- West Tripura. 

 

(3). Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 

Having its Registered Office at 6th Floor, 

DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, 

New Delhi-110001.........................................................Opposite Parties.

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

 

For the O.P. No.3 : Sri Amrit Lal Saha,

 

F I N A L     O R D E R

1. The present complaint has been filed by Sri Sushanta Chowdhuri, S/o Late Rabindra Chowdhuri, Amtali, Agartala (here-in-after referred to as 'the Complainant') against Satisfaction, represented by its Proprietor, Kaman Chowmuhani, Agartala (here-in-after referred to as 'the O.P.1'), S.B. Electronics, Melarmath, Agartala (here-in-after referred to as 'the O.P.2') and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, Sansad Marg, New Delhi (here-in-after referred to as 'the O.P.3') U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.   

The brief fact of the case is as under :

2.1 The Complainant purchased one mobile phone handset (in short 'the handset') from the O.P.1 by paying Rs.1,05,999/- . After few days, the Complainant observed some defects in the handset in terms of internet connectivity and overheating issues. 

2.2 The Complainant visited to O.P.2, which is an Authorized Service Centre of the O.P.3 and reported the defects. The Complainant deposited the  handset with the O.P.2 for repairing. The Complainant learnt from one of the employees of the O.P.2 that the motherboard and few other accessories were replaced for affecting the repair. But, the Complainant did not observe any improvement of the defects and again reported to the O.P.2 on 29.04.2022 for repairing and, deposited the disputed mobile handset again. Since then, the mobile handset has been lying with the O.P.2. 

2.3 On being contacted the O.P.2 on several occasions, it was apprised finally from the side of the O.P.2 that the defects of the mobile handset were unrepairable. Owing to such, the Complainant had asked the O.P.2 to replace the defective mobile by a new set.  

2.4 It is alleged by the Complainant that the defects of the handset are of a nature of manufacturing defects.  But, yet, the O.P.2 denied to provide a new mobile in substitution of the disputed handset. 

2.5 On being dissatisfied with the deficiency of service of the O.Ps., the Complainant filed this complaint petition to the Commission seeking direction to the O.P.s to refund the purchase value of the handset of Rs.1,05,999/- along with a compensation of Rs.1 lac and a litigation cost of Rs.40,000/-. 

2.6. Hence, this case.                                                 

3. The O.P1 and O.P.2 did not contest the case despite receiving summons from the Commission. The case proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.1 and O.P.2. The O.P.3 contested the case and submitted written version wherein they refuted and disproved all the allegations being leveled against them. 

3.1 The Complainant submitted evidence on affidavit by replicating the points, as outlined in the complaint petition. The O.P.3 also submitted evidence on affidavit reiterating the points indicated in their written version.          

4. Now, the points fall on for consideration in the case in hand are as under :

4.1 Whether the defects evolved in the mobile handset are in the nature of manufacturing defects or not ?

4.2 Whether the O.Ps. provided deficient service to the Complainant by not repairing / replacing the mobile handset ? 

4.3 If the points in Sub-Para 4.1 & 4.2 above decided in the affirmative, then what would be the reasonable compensation ?         

5. The case has been argued by the Learned Counsels of the Complainant and the O.P.3. The O.P.1 and O.P.2 did not participate to argue the case. The essential points of the argument expounded by the Learned Counsels of both the parties are as under :

5.1.  It has been pleaded by the Complainant that the handset was purchased by him, by paying an amount of Rs.1,05,999/-. The handset manifested certain defects in the nature of internet connectivity and overheating issues. On observing such defects, he reported the matter to the O.P.2 for repairing and deposited the mobile handset with the O.P.2. 

5.1.1 The O.P.2 repaired the handset and delivered the same to the Complainant. But, the Complainant observed the continuance of the defects, as  before. As a result of which, the Complainant again deposited the mobile handset to the O.P.2 for repairing and since then, the mobile handset has been lying with the O.P.2. 

5.1.2 It has been submitted that on repeated pusuasions, it was apprised from the the side of the O.P.2 that the defects of the handset were not repairable. The Complainant, thus, approached to the O.P.2 for replacement of the disputed handset with a new mobile phone. But the O.P.2 denied to replace the defective handset. The Complainant submitted that such neglect and inaction on the part of O.Ps. is a deficiency of service. 

5.2. Per contra, the O.P.3, while admitting the defects, submitted that the defects appeared in the handset are not manufacturing defects. Therefore, demanding the refund of the value of the handset / replacement of the handset does not appear to have a valid insistence being instituted by the Complainant. As per the laid down conditions of warranty, for replacement of a defective mobile handset there needs to establish of evolving a manufacturing defects in it. 

5.2.1 It is also submitted that the O.P.2 did not found any defect of the internet issue as raised by the Complainant. Therefore, the handset was defect-free. Multiple follow-ups have been made but the Complainant refused to collect the handset. 5.2.2 It is also submitted by the O.P.3 that the Complainant failed to get the handset examined by an expert to confirm about whether there is any manufacturing defect in it. 

6. We have heard arguments and scrupulously examined the materials on record. Our findings are as follows:

6.1 It is an admitted fact that the handset was purchased by the Complainant from the O.P.1 at a cost of Rs.1,05,999/-. It is also admitted by the O.P.2 that defects were evolved in the mobile handset and the O.P.2 carried out repairing on it. It is perceivable from the Acknowledgement of Service Request dated 11.04.2022 issued by the O.P.2 that the handset was brought for repairing due to the issues of network problem and overheating. It is also evident from that record that while affecting the repairing, the battery, re-work kit and other component/ accessories of the handset were replaced. The cost of replaced parts were charged as Rs.26,120.17. The second Acknowledgement of Service Request sheet dated 29.04.2022 issued by the O.P.2, in connection with undertaking repairing works for the second time, describes the defect  as network problem.

6.2 The submission of the O.P.3 that the handset does not have any defect is not borne out of the facts, as the two Acknowledgment of Service Requests issued by the O.P.2 dated 11.4.2022 and 22.4.2022 demonostrate otherwise.

6.3 In the matter of the contention put-forth by the O.P.3 of getting the defective handset examined by an expert, we are of the opinion that the O.P.2 is an Authorized Service Entity of the O.P.3. The O.P.2 has sufficient resource and requisite technical expertise to hold an opinion towards decide upon whether the handset suffered from any manufacturing defect or not. But, the O.P.2 did not come out with any opinion whatsoever in respect of the nature of the defects. Furthermore, the O.P.2 did not contest the case nor have they appeared at the argument stage of the case to view as such. 

6.4 The O.P.2 during the course of repairing of the handset replaced some of the essential vital parts of the handset. Therefore, it can be affirmed unequivocally that the assembly process at the manufacturing stage of the disputed handset there were some technical errors /defects either in the sub-steps of the assembly line or in the relevant parts. Subjecting to an errant assembly process or assembling of defective components/ parts/ accessories in manufacturing a mobile phone can eventually cause inherent manufacturing defects in the phone.  

6.5 As per the warranty card issued, the maximum liability under the warranty is limited to the product purchased value /MRP (which ever is lower). We, therefore, gave a thoughtful consideration to view that firstly, the O.Ps. failed to repair the mobile handset and then miserably flouted the condition of the warranty by not replacing the handset or refund the full amount. The O.P.1 and the O.P.3 are guilty to sell the defective handset and then providing a deficient after-sales service. Such mischievous and delinquent action on the part of the O.P.1 and O.P.3 is tantamount to deficiency of service. Furthermore, the handset essentially did not conform to the claim of the manufacturer/ seller in respect of supporting and performing over the basic features like internet access, standard battery functioning etc.. Therefore, the transaction of sale was not constituted in good faith by the O.P.1, as being a business associate of the O.P.3. This, according to us, amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice.   

7. Keeping the above observations in view, we order as follows:

7.1 The O.P.1 and O.P.3 are jointly and severally liable for providing deficient service and for adoption of unfair trade practice, as outlined in our findings above. Therefore, the O.P.1 and O.P.3 shall refund Rs.1,05,999/- i.e. the value of the mobile handset along with a compensation of Rs.30,000/-, which includes the litigation cost, to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order. Failing which, the O.P.1 and O.P.3 shall be liable to pay interest on the amounts @ 9% P.A. from the date of this order till realization. 

8. All the points under para-4 above are, accordingly, decided. Hence, the case stands disposed of. Supply free of cost copy of this final order to both the parties.         

         

 Announced.

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.