D.O.F:09/11/2021

                                                                                                   D.O.O:08/06/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.198/2021

Dated this, the 08^th day of June 2023

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                          : PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M   : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                          : MEMBER

P.M Joseph Panackal

S/o Mathew Panackal

Mudanthanpara

P.O Nattakal, West Eleri

Vellarikund Taluk

Kasaragod                                                                : Complainant

                                                          And

1. Shamil Abdulla, PDSCODE :660052409

ALIF Mobiles,

Naya Bazar, Kanhangad

M/s Mobile Souk

Sales Service, An Altimate Multi Brand

Mobile Show Room.

Naya Bazar, Kanhangad.

2. M/s Samsung                                                  : Opposite Parties

Service Centre 0003901138

Smartx, 6/878, Kasaragod

New Bus stand. Kasaragod

3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd

C/o Ingram Micro India Pvt Ltd

Udyog Vihar, Echo Tech 2, Greater Noida 201306

Uttar Pradesh

(Adv: C.V. Narayanan)

ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT

          The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile handset Samsung                              core MO1 on 15/03/2021 from mobile shop Kanhangad of Opposite Party No:1 and 2.  He paid Rs. 6999/-.  It carriers 1 year warranty but after 7 months use, charging has became came down.  Hence it is taken for service and  repair to Opposite Party No:1.  He advised to approach Opposite Party No:2.  They demanded Rs. 4000/- for repairing charges.  He went to Kanahangad and Kasaragod for repair of the phone.  He lost his valuable time.  And for that claims compensation and cost of litigation.

2.       The Opposite Party filed written version.  Their case is that there is no manufacturing defect.  Samsung is reputed company, the mobile phone set is not covered by warranty.  After inspection it was found that the reason was water logging, estimate expenses informed as Rs. 2000/-.  It is physical damage and physical damage is treated as outside warranty.  No negligence or deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.       The complainant produced documents, marked as Ext A1 and A2.  And filed chief affidavit and cross examined by Opposite Party No: 3. Ext A1 is receipt for service request , Ext A2 is bill for paying the price, Ext A3 is copy of Aadar.

4.       The Opposite Parties documents marked as Ext B1 to B4.  Ext B1 and B2 service receipt, Ext B3 is estimate, Ext B4 is photo.

5.       Considering rival contentions following points arise for consideration.

a)  Whether there is manufacturing defect to the mobile phone?

b)  Whether there is deficiency in service? Whether complainant is entitled for compensation?  If so for what is the relief?

6.       In cross examination Pw1 admitted receipt of warranty card.  He denied the suggestion that if the phone falls in water there is no warranty.  And denied the suggestion that there is no deficiency in service.

7.       The complainant is not demanding replacement or refund of the price of the mobile handset.  Hence restrict his claim for compensation only.  No evidence is available to prove manufacturing defect and hence complainant is not entitled to replacement or refund of price.

8.       At the same time since the phone is covered by warranty complainant is entitled to service or repair free and insisting for payment of Rs. 2150/- during warranty period is not in conformity with warranty conditions.  Hence there is negligence and deficiency in service by opposite party.  The complainant is entitled to compensation. The complainant claims Rs. 2000/- as compensation for which there is no justification.    Considering the fact that for repair Rs. 2150/- is claimed compensation is fixed Rs. 5000/- added with Rs. 2150/- above thus total Rs. 7150/- payable by Opposite Party No: 1 to 3 jointly and severally to complainant.

          In the result complaint is allowed in part.  The Opposite Party No:1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs. 7150/- (Rupees Seven thousand one hundred and fifty only) as compensation and Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.

     Sd/-                                                     Sd/-                                       Sd/-

MEMBER                                              MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Receipt for service request

A2- Bill

A3- Copy of Aadar card.

B1 & B2 – Service receipt

B3- Estimate

B4- Photo

Witness Examined

Pw1- P.M Joseph

      Sd/-                                           Sd/-                                            Sd/-

MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                      Assistant Registrar

Ps/