Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

1/2013

T.Amraj, Advocate, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Singapore Cell Park, rep.by Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

P.Kamarasu

24 Nov 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  27.12.2012

                                                                Order pronounced on:  24.11.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 24^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.01/2013

 

T.Amraj, Advocate,

No.207, New Additional Law Chambers,

High Court Buildings,

Chennai – 600 104.

 

                                                                                        ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. Singapore Cell Park,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.224, N.S.C. Bose Road,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

2.MRGM Agencies,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.336/645, Thiruvotriyur High Road,

Thiruvotriyur,

Chennai – 600 019.

 

3.SAMSUNG Customer Satisfactions,

Rep. by its Manager,

Second Floor, Tower – C,

Vipul Tech Square, Sector – 43,

Golf Course Road, Gurgaon,

Haryana – 122 002.

	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  : 03.01.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : P.Kamarasu

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party                       : M/s. V.R.Appaswamee

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party                      : Ex - parte

Counsel for 3rd opposite party                : M/s.V.V.Giridhar

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant purchase a Samsung Mobile phone on 18.11.2011 for a consideration of Rs.4,200/- from the 1^st Opposite Party. The said mobile phone has one year warranty. After 3 months of purchase the display of the mobile was fully disappeared on 30.03.2012. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the service provider of the 3^rd Opposite Party/manufacturer of Samsung Mobile Phone. The Complainant gave the mobile to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 31.03.2012 for service. The 2^nd Opposite Party asked the Complainant to collect the mobile after two days. After extending time by the 2^nd Opposite Party finally he delivered the mobile to the Complainant on 11.04.2012. Again on 11.04.2012 night itself the display was disappeared and once again the Complainant entrusted the mobile to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 12.04.2012. Finally the 2^nd Opposite Party gave the mobile on 07.05.2012 not in a working condition. The 2^nd Opposite Party staff informed him that the mobile has manufacturing defect and he has no authority to replace the same and advised to approach the 1^st Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party replied that he has no authority for replacement. Hence the Complainant issued legal notice dated 19.06.2012 to the Opposite Parties and though the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 received the same they have not replied and notice sent to the 2^nd Opposite Party returned to him. Failure to rectify the defects in the mobile, the Complainant suffered with mental agony. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to refund the cost of the mobile and compensation for the deficiency committed by the Opposite Parties with cost of the Complaint.

          2. The 2^nd Opposite Party remained Ex- parte.

3. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st Opposite Party admits that the Complainant purchased a Samsung Mobile on 18.11.2011 from him. The executive of the 1^st Opposite Party inserted the sim card and battery in the mobile and demonstrated to the Complainant and after full satisfaction the Complainant purchased the same. At the time of selling the product no defect is found.  This Opposite Party is not liable for the defects alleged by the Complainant. Hence, this Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

4. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE 3^rd   OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          This Opposite Party states that the functioning of the mobile phone in all depends on the handling the same by the customer. The 2^nd Opposite Party received the mobile on 31.03.2012 and cleaned the handset and on the same day handed over to the Complainant. The Complainant received the mobile on the day with an endorsement that the above job has been done to his satisfaction. Therefore the contention of the Complainant that the mobile was handed over to him on 11.04.2012 is false and the same was made without any basis. Again on 12.04.2012 the Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party that the display getting hanged and once again the display was replaced and  after rectification the mobile was handed over to him on 25.04.2012 and hence the contention of the Complainant that the mobile was handed over to him on 07.05.2012 is only per-se-false . This Opposite Party denies that the service staff of the 2^nd Opposite Party told the Complainant that the speaker of the mobile became defective and the product has manufacturing defect.  Therefore the other averments made in the Complainant also denied and the 3^rd Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

5.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

6.POINT : 1

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant purchased a Samsung Mobile Phone  at the 1^st Opposite Party shop on payment of consideration of Rs.4,200/- under Ex.A1 bill  and the said mobile was entrusted to the 2^nd Opposite Party who is the authorized service provider of the 3^rd Opposite Party manufacturer under Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 and  the 2^nd Opposite Party also serviced  the product and delivered to the Complainant.

          7. The Complainant alleged deficiency against the 2^nd Opposite Party is that he entrusted the mobile for service on 31.03.2012 for failure of display, the  2^nd Opposite Party asked him to come after two days and again he went on 02.04.2012 & 04.04.2012 and again asked him to come after a week and the mobile was delivered to him on 11.04.2012  under Ex.A2 and however  on the same night the display disappeared and hence he again entrusted the mobile to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 12.04.2012 under Ex.A3 and the mobile was delivered to him on 07.05.2012 without rectifying the same and therefore after issuing Ex.A4 notice for the deficiency committed by the 2^nd Opposite Party and also the 1^st & 3^rd Opposite Party since they were jointly liable for the deficiency, he had filed this Complaint.

          8. The 3^rd Opposite Party  contended that the 2^nd Opposite Party serviced the mobile and handed over to the Complainant in a working condition and further on 31.03.2012 itself the mobile was cleaned  and  handed to him and the  mobile again received on 12.04.2012 as per Ex.A3 and after service in a working condition handed to him on 23.04.2012 as admitted by the Complainant in Ex.A3 notice issued by him and after receiving mobile after 8 months the Complaint has been filed cannot be accepted for the reason that  the Complainant is an advocate and therefore he has not committed any Deficiency in Service and the 1^st Opposite Party contended that he is only a seller and he has no connection with the service done by the 2^nd Opposite Party and hence he has also not committed any Deficiency in Service  and both of them prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          9. Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 is the proof that the Complainant entrusted the Samsung Mobile purchased from the 1^st Opposite Party to the 2^nd Opposite Party for display problem for rectification. Ex.A2 is the service request receipt issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party to the Complainant. In that receipt the mobile was entrusted on 31.03.2012.  The Complainant collected the product after service. However there is no delivery date has been found in Ex.A2.  The Complainant collected the product with printed endorsement that job has been done to my satisfaction. Therefore under Ex.A2 the mobile was rectified by the 2^nd Opposite Party and delivered to the Complainant to his full satisfaction. The 3^rd Opposite Party specifically contended that he had only cleaned the mobile and delivered to him on the same day of entrustment. In the absence of proof of documentary evidence of the Complainant that the product was delivered to him on 11.04.2012, it has to be taken as the product was delivered only on 31.03.2012 as contended by the 3^rd Opposite Party.

          10. Under Ex.A3 the product was entrusted to the 2nd Opposite Party on 12.04.2012 for service. According to the Complainant the product was delivered on 07.05.2012 after asking the Complainant to come for several days.  Below the signature of the Complainant the date found as 07.05.2012 in Ex.A3. However the Complainant in his Ex.A4 notice issued to the Opposite Parties categorically stated that he entrusted the mobile on 12.04.2012 and he got back his mobile on 23.04.2012. Therefore the date found in Ex.A3 cannot be accepted and we hold that the mobile phone was handed over to the Complainant for the second time after rectification only on 23.04.2012 and not on 07.05.2012.

          11. The Complainant is an advocate by his profession and he also pleaded in the Complaint that he suffered heavy monetary loss and also mental agony that he was not in communication between the periods 31.03.2012 to 11.04.2012. If it is so, if the 2^nd Opposite Party without rectifying the mobile delivered to the Complainant on 23.04.2012, by virtue of his profession, the Complainant ought to have rectified this mobile for his communication in respect of his profession with other service provider or he would have purchased an another mobile for that purpose and without doing so, the Complainant filed this Complaint after 8 months receiving mobile from the 2^nd Opposite Party is not at all acceptable. It means the mobile delivered to the Complainant on 23.04.2012 should have been working in a proper condition and that is why immediately he had not filed this Complaint   against the Opposite Parties. Therefore in view of the forgoing discussions we hold that the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 have not committed any Deficiency in Service and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

 

 

 12.POINT :2      

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 24^th   day of November 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 18.11.2011                   Mobile Bill

Ex.A2 dated 31.03.2012                   Service Request Receipt

Ex.A3 dated 12.04.2012                   Service Request Receipt

Ex.A4 dated 19.06.2012                   Legal Notice

Ex.A5 dated June2012            Acknowledgement card

Ex.A6 dated         June 2012            Returned R.P.A.D cover

Ex.A7 dated 21.08.2012                   Acknowledgement Letter

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st & 3 OPPOSITE PARTIES:

                                      …… NIL …….   

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT