BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 177/2014 Filed on 14/05/2014
Dated: 28..10..2016
Complainant:
Biju. J.S., Pratheeksha, Kaipattimukku, Avanavancherry, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 103.
(By Adv. S. Shibu Kumar)
Opposite parties:
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A 25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Industrial Co-operative Estate, New Delhi – 110 044.
(By Adv. P. Fazil)
2. The Manager, Sky Cell, Muthoot Chambers, Vadayattukotta Road, Kollam – 691 001.
This C.C having been heard on 31..08..2016, the Forum on 28..10..2016 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. R. SATHI, MEMBER:
The complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy S4 Smart Phone on 17/05/2013 from City Mobile, Attingal. He also purchased one protective cover for the mobile from Samsung Smart Phone Cafe, Attingal for Rs. 2,499/- on 08/07/2013. After three months of purchase the problem of over heating and hanging occurred with the mobile. The complainant had given to the nearest authorised Samsung Service Centre, Thiruvananthapuram on 23/09/2013 for over heating and hanging problem. It took almost one month delay for the completion of the service due to non availability of the inner parts. One month after the service, it again started the same problem of over heating and hanging and the complainant also noticed a thin scratch on the display screen. He approached the Samsung Authorised Service Centre, Kollam ie 2nd opposite party on 28/01/2014 and the 2nd opposite party asked to pay Rs. 7500/- for the service. The complainant used the device only for six months out of twelve months. The complainant sent Lawyer’s notice to 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party. The Company also sent reply. But the opposite parties were not able to compensate for loss and deficiency in services. Hence the complainant approached this Forum for compensation for the sufferings.
2. Notice was ordered to opposite parties and opposite parties accepted notice. The 2nd opposite party failed to appear before this Forum and file version, hence set exparte.
3. The 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The 1st opposite party filed version stating that the complainant had approached the 2nd opposite party for repairing and the 2nd opposite party repaired the mobile and is with the 2nd opposite party till now. The dispute now raised by the complainant and 2nd opposite party at Kollam. Therefore no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore the complaint is not maintainable. The 2nd opposite party staff informed the complainant that the complaint in the set is due to the breakage of LCD and the complaint will not be covered as per the warranty terms and conditions of the warranty issued by this opposite party at the time of purchase of the mobile. The complainant approached the 2nd opposite party on 24/09/2013 and the 2nd opposite party have updated the software and the mobile set was working properly. Moreover the complainant had not raised any complaints for long time thereafter. On 28/01/2014 ie after 8 months of usage the complainant brought the mobile with the complaint with LCD. The service personnel had informed that the LCD of the mobile will never break due to overheating. The handset is physically damaged and is not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty issued by this opposite party. The complainant accepted estimate of the repair cost and agreed for the said estimate and signed on the job sheet. But after repair the complainant refused to take back the same and the 2nd opposite party sent registered letter requesting the complainant to collect the same. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the 1st opposite party as alleged and the mobile is defect free from 30/01/2014. The physical damage caused to the mobile phone by careless handling can never be termed as a manufacturing defect. The complainant is only entitled to get the repaired and mobile set back after making the necessary repair charges as per the agreed estimate. It is submitted that the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed for in the complaint. Hence the complaint is only to be dismissed.
Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked documents as Exts. P1 to P7.
Issues:
(i) Whether this Forum has jurisdiction?
(ii) Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on opposite parties’ side?
(ii) Whether the complainant is eligible for any reliefs as sought for?
4. Issues (i) & (iii): The complainant purchased Samsung Galaxy mobile on 17/05/2013 from City Mobile, Attingal as per Ext. P1. He also purchased protective cover for Rs. 2499/- as per Ext. P2. After using it for three months, the phone it is noted that it is over heating and over hanging during calls. He approached the Samsung Service Centre at Kazhakkuttom on 23/09/2013 as per Ext. P3 and it took one month for completion of service due to non-availability of inner parts. After one month of service it again started same problem of over heating and hanging and due this over heating he noticed a thin scratch on the display screen. Then the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party on 28/01/2014 as per Ext. P4. According to the complainant he was asked to pay Rs. 7500/- for the service. Due to over heating and hanging he cannot use this device any more and it is still in the 2nd opposite party authorised service centre. The Ext. P5 is the letter from 2nd opposite party stating that the hand set is in defect free condition. But the allegation of the complainant is that the service centre accepted the handling problem of the device. The complainant also sent Lawyer’s notice and was marked as Ext. P6. The Ext. P7 reply was also sent by the 1st opposite party but the opposite parties were not able to compensate for his loss. Hence the complainant approached this Forum for getting compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for deficiency of service and for the loss sustained to him. In the affidavit the complainant stated that this Forum has jurisdiction as he purchased the device from Attingal which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Moreover the 1st opposite party filed version only and abstained from the proceedings. The opposite party in the version itself raised the contention of jurisdiction. But the complainant did not take any steps against this. The contention of the complainant that he purchased the device from Attingal will not save jurisdiction as the dealer is not in the party array. There is no opposite party situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence considering this issue complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Therefore the other issues are not discussed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant file fresh complaint before the appropriate Forum.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 28th day of October, 2016.
Sd/-R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Ad sd/- LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 177/2014
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness : N I L
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Copy of retail invoice of City Mobile dated 17/05/2013
P2 : Copy of retail invoice of Samsung dated 08/07/2013
P3 : Copy of Samsung Service Request dated 23/09/2013
P4 : Copy of Samsung Service Request dated 28/01/2014
P5 : Copy of Biju J.S from the Manager, Samsung Skycell
P6 : Copy of letter to Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd and the Manager, Skycell from Adv. Shibu Kumar.
P7 : Copy of letter to Biju from Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd dated 16/02/2014
III. Opposite parties’ witness : N I L
IV. Opposite parties’ documents : N I L
Sd/- PRESIDENT
Ad.
