Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/5/2018

Mr.Thanveer Ahamed - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Signatory,Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S.Sathyanarayanarao

04 Oct 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:19.01.2018

DISPOSED  ON:04.10.2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

 

CC.NO:5/2018

 

DATED:  4^th OCTOBER 2018

PRESENT: -SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH : PRESIDENT                          B.A., LL.B.,

SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI:

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,            : LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT	Mr.Thanveer Ahamed S/o Late Abdul Gani Sab, Automobile Shop, JP Manzil, Near Kohinoor Idgah, Agsanakallu, Chitradurga-577501.   (Rep by Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Authorized Signatory, Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt Ltd. Opp Vasavi Mahal, Amogha International Road, Chitradurga-577501.   2. The Authorized Signatory, Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt Ltd., #1183,22nd A Cross,30th Main road, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bangalore-560070.   3. The Authorized Signatory, Samsung Care, Danish Mobiles, New Santhae Maidhana, Oppt Super Market, Behind Pvt Bus stand, Chitradurga.   4. The Authorized Signatory, Samsung Electronics India Pvt Ltd, A-25,Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.    (Rep by Sri.T.N. Ramesh, Advocate for OP No.3 and 4 and OP No.1 and 2 in person)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH    : PRESIDENT

The above complaint has beenfiled by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to refund the handset price of Rs.57,103/- along with interest @ 18% p.a, Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the complaint is that, OP No.1 is the authorized sales person of different company mobiles having high reputation in the mobile field and OP No.2 is the Head Office of OP No.1, OP No.3 is the authorized service center and OP No.4 is the manufacturer of Samsung Electronic goods and consumables.   It is further submitted that, the complainant has purchased a Samsung company mobile of G-935-32-GB – Galaxy S7 Edge – Black model from OP No.1 under invoice No.SI/CDU/279 on 24.04.2016 for an amount of Rs.57,103/- with two years warrantee by availing financial assistance of Rs.29,133/- from Bajaj Finser lending and was paying installment regularly.  After pursing the above said mobile, it was not working properly and it was giving trouble like a white line is appearing in the display screen and overheating and also hanging problems.  Immediately, the complainant visited the OP No.1 shop and brought to the notice of OP No.1 and the OP No.1 directed the complainant to approach OP No.3 for attending the repairs.  Complainant approached the OP No.3 and handed over the mobile handset and after the repair take back the same.  It is further submitted that, after lapse of 2-3 months, the said hand set started to give same problem as stated above.  Again the complainant approached the OP No.3 and after the repair, the complainant took back the same.  After lapse of one week, the same problem has been repeated.  Therefore, the complainant approached OP No.1 and requested to replace the hand set or to refund the amount with nominal interest, but the OP No.1 refused to do so, it shows the deficiency in service.  Now the handset is kept idle.  Complainant has purchased the above said handset by investing an amount of Rs.57,103/- with an assurance that, the service is good.  Due to defective hand set, the complainant has incurred heavy loss, suffering from mental agony and waste of time and energy and the purpose of purchasing the mobile hand set has not been fulfilled.  The OPs have failed to got it repaired the handset which was within the warranty period.  Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice on 20.11.2017 to the OPs, the OP No.1 has complied the notice by denying all the allegations made by the complainant.  Hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

3.     After service of notice, OP No. 1 and 2 appeared in person and OP No.3 and 4 appeared through Sri. T.N. Ramesh, Advocate and filed their version. 

According to the version filed by OP No.1 and 2, it is submitted that, OP No.1 and 2 are dealing in sales of various kinds of mobile handsets of various manufacturers through its network of 450+ outlets situated across India including Karnataka.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has purchased Samsung G 935-32 GB – Galaxy S7 Edge bearing IMEI No.357327070558529 on 24.04.2016 under invoice No.SI/CDU/279 from OP No.1 covering manufacturing warranty of one year.  The OP No.1 and 2 are doing the role as a facilitator and are permitted only to sell the mobile handset without opening the seal of the sealed box as a retailer including the Samsung India Ltd., who is the manufacturer of the above said Mobile handset.  It is denied that, the above mobile hand set is covering two year warranty and the complainant with a sole intention to create the cause of action falsely stated wrong information before this Forum and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The box of the above mobile handset clearly shows that, the mobile handset covered under one year manufacturer’s warranty.  The averments made in para 3 of the complaint are partially true, it is correct to suggest that, the complainant availed finance from Bajaj Finser lending, the same is specified in the purchase bill and the averments made in para 5 of the complaint is false and incorrect and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  After one year from the date of purchase of the mobile handset, the warranty shall be barred by efflux of time and the manufacturers or authorized service centers are not liable to provide any service free of cost after the expiry of the warranty period.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 and 2 and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

According to the version filed by OP No.4, it is submitted that, the present complaint is without any just or reasonable basis, an abuse of process of law, misuse of machinery provided for redressal of genuine grievances and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed with costs.  The allegations made in the complaint are setup by the complainant to make a ground to file this complaint and the complainant has not come with clean hands.  The complainant has purchased the handset on 24.04.2016 but it is not true that, the mobile is having two years warranty as contended by the complainant in para 3 of the complaint and the warranty is only one year which was expired on 19.01.2018 and this complaint is filed after a lapse of 9 months from the date of expiry of warranty period.  It is further submitted that, the complainant approached the service centre on 30.11.2017 i.e., after 20 months from the date of purchase i.e., out of warranty, the same is clearly mentioned in the service job sheet No.4250525729 at warranty status column.  The service centre inspected the hand set and found damage in touch screen due to over pressing or mobile might have been fallen to ground.  It is further submitted that, the service engineer came to know about the damage to touch and the complainant is also intimated that service work and replacement of part will be carried out on chargeable basis only and not free of cost as expected by the complainant.  It is further submitted that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharathi Nitting Vs DHL Worldwide held that, in case of specific term in the contract the parties will be bound by the terms of the contract, the service request is made after expiry of warranty period, in the service job sheet also mentioned if mobile is misused and any issue developed due to said fact, the customer is not eligible free of cost service.  It is further submitted that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Stereo-craft Vs Monotype India Ltd., New Delhi (2000) NCJ (SC) (59) held that, when the terms of warranty does not cover refund or replacement then consumer cannot claim either of it during or after lapse of warranty period.  The consumer can claim only repairing of the product if it is permissible under the terms of service contract or warranty.  It is further submitted that, the Hon’ble National Commission in Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra and another held that, the onus to prove the manufacturing defect was on the complainant and further, it was necessary to obtain expert opinion before saying that there was manufacturing defect and the replacement is not a ground to file this complaint as well as demanding of full mobile price with interest.  The Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.390/2003 held if a part could be replaced or a defect could be removed then replacement cannot be ordered.   It is denied that the allegations made in para 7 of the complaint that, the OPs failed to repair the mobile within warranty and in fact the complainant failed to establish that mobile is within warranty period and he is eligible for free service.  There is no assessment from the complainant before claiming compensation under the heading alleged deficiency in service and there is no cause of action accrued to the complainant to file this complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.                

4.     Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-5 were got marked.  On behalf of OP No.4 one Sri.H.M. Madhu, the Area Service Manager has examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 document has been got marked.

5.     Arguments heard.

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service by supplying the defective mobile handset to him and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, complainant has purchased one Samsung Mobile of G-935-32 GB – Galaxy S7 Edge – Black Model vide Invoice No.SI/CDU/279 from OP No.1 on 24.04.2016 by paying Rs.57,103-64 which covers warranty of 2 years.  The contention taken by the complainant that, after one year from the date of purchase, the same was not in proper working condition and also there is heating and hanging again & again.  The touch screen of the said hand set is also not working properly.   The same was informed to the OPs but, the OPs have not come forward to rectify the above said defects found in the handset, which clearly shows that, the mobile handset purchased by the complainant is a manufacturing defect.  

9.     Ex.A-1 clearly shows that, the complainant has purchased one mobile handset from the OP No.1 by paying a sum of Rs.57,103/- under Tax Invoice No.SI/CDU/279 dated 24.04.2016.   After purchasing and using the same only for one year, the handset started giving problems which were unexplained.  The complainant approached all the OP No.1 and requested to rectify the problems occurred in the mobile handset.  But, OP No.1 told the complainant to approach the OP No.3 for rectification of the problems found in the hand set.  OP No.3 has repaired the hand set but, the same problems found in the handset. 

10.   We have gone through the entire documents, affidavit filed by the complainant and the version and affidavit filed by OPs, it clearly made out from the documents that, as per Ex.A-1, the complainant has purchased the above said mobile handset by paying an amount of Rs.57,103/- having a warranty of 2 years.  But, the same is having manufacturing defects since from the date of purchase.  After using the said mobile handset for one year, some un-explained defects found in the said handset.  The complainant approached the OPs several times to rectify the same but, they failed to rectify/cure the same.  Due to the defects found in the handset, the complainant has suffered mentally and financially for selling the defective mobile handset by the OPs, which caused mental agony and financial loss, which cannot be compensated by the OPs unless on payment of compensation.  The complainant has proved that, the OP No.1 has sold the defective mobile handset to the complainant manufactured by its manufacturer/OPs.  On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum has comes to the conclusion that, the complainant is entitled to receive the price of the mobile i.e., Rs.57,103/-, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/-towards cost is just and proper.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

 

          11.Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

          It is ordered that the OPs are hereby jointly and severally directed to refund an amount of Rs.57,103/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of purchase of the mobile till realization.

          It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

          It is further ordered that, the OPs hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

                                                            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 04/10/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

                                                               

          MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined onbehalf of Complainant:

 

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Witnesses examined onbehalf of OPs:

 

DW-1:- Sri.H.M. Madhu, by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

 

01	Ex-A-1:-	Invoice dated 24.04.2016
02	Ex.A-2:-	Legal Notice dated 20.11.2017
03	Ex.A-3:-	Reply Letter dated 05.12.2017
04	Ex.A-4:-	4 postal receipts
05	Ex.A-5:-	3 postal acknowledgements

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01

Ex-B-1:-

Acknowledgement of service request

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**