IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of May, 2015
Filed on 15.07.2014
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.179/2014
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. U. Manoj 1. Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd.
Ajith Bhavan A 25, Ground Floor, Front Tower
Pazhaveedu P.O. Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate
Alappuzha New Delhi – 110 044
(By Adv. Sreejith V. Nair)
2. Radio Centre, Cellular Service
C.C.N.B. Road, Mullackal
Alappuzha
(By Adv. Jayan. C. Das)
3. I Care Solutions, MCW 26/475A
Stadium Ward, Alappuzha – 688 001
(By Adv. K.T. Anishmon) O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The facts of the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant purchased a mobile phone from the second opposite party manufactured by the first opposite party for an amount of Rs.19,500/- on 25.6.2013 which is having a warranty of one year commencing from 25.6.2013 and ending on 25.6.2014. On 18.6.2014 the phone became switched off and the complainant approached the third opposite party and entrusted the phone to rectify the defect. When the complainant approached the third opposite party for getting the repaired mobile phone they demanded an amount of Rs.7500/- towards repairing charges. It was further submitted that the complainant handed over the mobile phone to the third opposite party for repairing on 18.6.2014 and at that time the phone was covered under warranty and the third opposite party intentionally delayed the repairing and on the expiry of the warranty period, they demanded an amount of Rs.7500/- from the complainant. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint seeking replacement of the mobile phone along with compensation and costs.
2. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant approached the third opposite party with a water logged phone and the opposite party informed the complainant that water logging will not be covered under the warranty and the same will be repaired on payment. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint may be dismissed.
3. The version of the second opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. It is true that complainant purchased a Samsung gallexy phone from the second opposite party. But there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs from this opposite party.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. No oral or documentary evidence were produced on the side of the opposite parties.
5. Considering the allegations of the complainant and contentions of the opposite parties, the Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
5. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone from the second opposite party manufactured by the first opposite party on 25.6.2013 for an amount of Rs.19,500/- and the same is having one year warranty. The phone became defective on 18.6.2014 when it was covered under warranty. The opposite party delayed the repairing and on the expiry of the warranty they demanded an amount of Rs.7500/- towards repairing charges. The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. Ext.A1 is the bill dated 25.6.2013, Ext.A2 is the warranty card and Ext.A3 is the receipt dated 18.6.2014. From Ext.A3, it can be seen that the complainant entrusted the mobile phone on 18.6.2014. So the defects arose within the warranty period. According to the opposite parties the phone was waterlogged and which will not to be covered under warranty. The complainant entrusted the mobile phone to the third opposite party on 18.6.2014 and the opposite party issued a receipt Ext.A3. It was not mentioned in Ext.A3 that whether the mobile phone is liquid log or not. In Ext.A3 there is a specific column to mention whether the phone is liquid logged? Nothing was mentioned there. If the opposite party found that the mobile phone is liquid logged, it should have definitely mentioned in Ext.A3. The first opposite party in their version stated that on 18.6.2014 the complainant handed over the mobile phone the service engineer of the opposite party found water logging inside and the same day itself an estimate of Rs.7500/- was informed to the complainant. If that is so definitely it should have been mentioned in Ext.A3 which was issued on 18.6.2014. In Ext.A3 nothing was mentioned under the head estimate details. No documents produced by the opposite party to prove their contention that the phone is water logged. So the contention of the opposite party that the phone is water logged and it does not cover under warranty will not sustain. From Exts.A2 and A3 it is clear that the product is having one year warranty and the defect arose within the warranty period. The complainant used the mobile phone for about 11 months without any fault, so that no manufacturing defect can be presumed unless otherwise proved. Hence the Forum cannot direct the opposite party to replace the mobile phone as prayed by the complainant. On a perusal of the entire evidence and others submission we can’t find any deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party. So second opposite party can’t be made liable for any deficiency in service. Since the defect arose within the warranty period, and it has not been repaired and returned to the complainant so far. The opposite parties 1 and 3 have committed deficiency in service. So the complaint is allowed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The first and third opposite parties are directed to rectify the defect of the mobile phone to the satisfaction of the complainant at free of cost. The opposite parties 1 and 3 are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant and Rs.1500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties 1 and 3 are directed to replace the mobile phone along with fresh warranty.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) : .
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - U. Manoj (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Bill dated 25.6.2013 for Rs.19,500/-
Ext.A2 - Warranty Card
Ext.A3 - Receipt dated 18.6.2014
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-pg/-
