DATE OF FILING: 06.02.2017
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 24.03.2018
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant Anila Kumar Padhy has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Samsung Galaxy Model No. Samsung-J200/ME/No.353278087967720 on payment of Rs.7,600/-on dated 09.10.2016 from O.P.No.3. After using three month only on dated 11.01.2017 the above mobile did not open suddenly in spite of several attempts. The complainant approached O.P.No.1 on dated 11.01.2017 to remove the defect and handed over the said mobile sets to him. The O.P.No.1 handed over a report of the defective mobile stating that “LCD Broken” and claimed Rs.2830.60 to remove defects. In fact the LCD of the said mobile was not broken. It is found defective during use of the mobile. But in the service report it is wrongly mentioned as LCD broken, which is intentionally written with aim to extract money towards repairing of the mobile. The defect occurred within warranty period and the O.P.No.1 did not open the mobile set before the complainant and handed over a report at this own choice. It is clear visible that the said LCD of the mobile has not broken at all. The O.P.No.2 is the manufacturer of the said mobile. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to remove the defects of the said mobile freed of cost as the mobile within the warranty period or handed over a new mobile and to pay Rs.1500/- as compensation to the complainant in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.P.No.1 and 2 filed version through his advocate. It is stated that the alleged defect in the mobile phone cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of it. The mobile phone was submitted before O.P.No.1 for service on 11.01.2017 and the complaint is registered. On the same day technician inspected the mobile telephone and noticed, due to external force the liquid in display is logged and same is not covered under warranty terms and conditions. It is explained that warranty is not covered for physical damage caused by abuse, accident, misuse, liquid log in any part, earthquake, fire, short circuit or any other kind of damages external or internal. In such circumstances, complaint was advised to avail paid service and an estimate was provided. However, complaint denied availing such paid service, for which the complaint is closed. The alleged hand set and customer copy of job card bearing number 4228877192 dated 11.01.2017 returned to the complainant. As per report of technician of authorized service centre, this is not an established case of manufacturing defect in mobile phone. On inspection it is detected by the technician that the LCD of the mobile telephone is broken and liquid lagged in it, due to external forces. It is apprised to the complainant that warranty is not covered for broken cases, and for which he need to pay service charges alongwith charges for spare part. Complainant denied to avail such service and preferred to get back his mobile. On receipt of complaint the O.P. registered it and provides estimate for service as the warranty on the product is void. Hence this is not a case of denial of rendering service. The O.P. never refused to provide service on chargeable basis in terms of limited and agreed warranty conditions. In aforesaid circumstances, this is a premature complaint. Hence the O.P.No.1 and 2 prayed that the averments/prayers are bald, frivolous, misconceived and made without any merit and the instant complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. Upon notice the O.P.No.3 filed version through his advocate. It is stated that the complaint filed by the above named complainant are totally not true, those are not specifically admitted herein. The complainant is to put into strict proof of the averments written in the above complaint petition. In this case the O.P.No.3 is a selling counter of SAMSUNG mobile set. This O.P. by purchasing the sets in wholesale price from the local company distributor are selling in their counter in retail price in the market. This OP is not a manufacturing unit of the company of the product, therefore not responsible for any manufacturing defect of the product. It is also stated that in the complaint petition there are no specific allegation against this O.P. as well as no specific responsibility charged against this O.P. as well as no specific responsibility charged against this O.P. Therefore the cased is not maintainable against this O.P. Hence O.P.No.3 prayed this case is dismissed against him.
5. On the date of final hearing the complainant was present in person as well as the learned counsel for the O.P.No.1 and 2 are present. Advocate for O.P.No.3 is absent. We heard argument from both sides at length. We have also thoroughly considered the submission made before us by the complainant as well as learned counsel for the O.P.No.1 & 2. In his complaint petition supported by affidavit the complainant stated that the O.Ps failed to replace the defective Samsung mobile or in alternative to refund the costs of the said phone i.e. Rs.7,600/- during the warranty period. The learned advocate for O.P.No.1 & 2 has relied on several citations of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, National CDR Commission and other courts. The learned advocate for O.P.No.1 and 2 submitted that the defect of the complainant’s mobile does not cover under the warranty condition of O.P.No.1 & 2.
6. In the instant case, after perusal of the record and scrutiny of documents it reveals that O.P.No.1 has informed about the defect to the complainant regarding the LCD broken on 11.01.2017 vide work order No. 4228877192 dated 11.1.2017 and estimate cost of the parts and repair is Rs.2,830/-. It is pertinent to mention here that in the written version O.P.No.1 & 2 have taken a plea that the LCD of the said mobile has damaged due to external forces and liquid logged in it. But the O.Ps have also failed to file any documentary evidence in support of their claim that the LCD of the said mobile is damaged due to external forces and liquid logged in it. But it is seen in the naked eye that the alleged mobile’s LCD has not broken.
7. On foregoing discussion we presumed that the complainant’s mobile is defective. As the O.Ps have failed to file any supporting documents for what reason either for external force or for water logging the LCD has broken. Hence, in our considered view, the O.P.No.1 & 2 are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No.1 & 2 and we hold there is no liability on the part of the O.P.No.3 who has only sold the said mobile to the complainant.
8. As a result, the complainant’s case is partly allowed on contest against O.P.No.1 & 2 and dismissed against O.P.No.3. Both O.P.No.1 & 2 are directed to repair of the mobile of the complainant in free of cost and shall give 9 months fresh warranty to the complainant from the date of repair of the said mobile. Both O.P.No.1 & 2 shall carry out the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to cost and compensation.
The order is pronounced on this day of 24th March 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
