Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/31/2016

K.Mahesh Babu, S/o K.Guravaiah, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorized person, SV Digital - Opp.Party(s)

A.Madhu murthy

28 Oct 2016

ORDER

 

 

 

                                                                                                Filing Date:-04-04-2016                                                                                                               Order Date:  28-10-2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                       Smt. T. Anitha, Member

 

        FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND

AND SIXTEEN

C.C.No.31/2016

Between

K. Mahesh Babu,

S/o. K. Guravaiah,

Hindu, aged about 34 years,

A/C Mechanic,

Residing at D.No. 14-3-306/10,

STV Nagar, Tirupati.                                                                         … Complainant

 

And

1.The Authorized Person,

    SV Digital,

    Shop at D.No.16-1-17,

    Nethaji Road,

    Tirupati.

 

 2. Lotus Laxmi Marketing,

    Rep. by Authorized Person,

    New India Assurance Company,

   13-3-397, Tilak Road,

   Tirupati.

 

  3. The Authorized Person,

     Samsung India Electronic Private Ltd.,

     A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower,

     Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

     New Delhi-110044.                                                            … Opposite parties

 

 

           This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 21.10.2016 and upon perusing the complaint, written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.A.Madhu Murthy, counsel for the complainant and Sri.A.Suresh, counsel for the opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.1 & 2 are remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           This complaint is filed under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.39,000/- towards cost of the mobile with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization, and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony and also to pay costs of the complaint.

           2. The brief facts of the case are:  The complainant purchased mobile phone from opposite party no.1’s shop which is manufactured by opposite party no.3 on 25.01.2015 SAMSUNG GALAXY ALFA SM-G850Y for Rs.39,000/- and the said mobile got warranty period of one year. The complainant further submits that immediately after the purchase of the said cell phone he insured the said mobile with opposite party no.2 and he paid Rs.2,499/- as a premium.  The complainant further submits that, from the date of the purchase the said mobile is giving problem and used to hang now and then and also whenever the complainant used to attend more than two calls the audio for FM is not working and also the mobile phone is getting overheated and display will not appear on the screen and the complainant  adjusted with the said mobile for two months and he gave the complaint to the opposite party no.3 who is the service centre with the instructions of the opposite party no.1 and he approached the service centre several times but the opposite parties failed to do the service properly and the same problem is subsisting in the said mobile phone. At last the complainant approached the service centre on 11.01.2016 as the warranty period will expire on 25.01.2016. Hence on several occasions the opposite parties failed to issue the job card to the complainant and the complainant approached the opposite parties nearly ten occasions but the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect in the said phone.  Hence on 21.03.2016 the complainant issued legal notice calling upon the opposites parties to rectify the defect in the said mobile phone. But the opposite parties 1 and 2 even after receipt of the same they failed to do the same. Hence he filed the present complaint.

          3.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 remained absent and set exparte.

          4.  The opposite party no. 3 appeared before this Forum and filed the written version and stated that the products of the Samsung are of the highest quality and it will never sell any product which is defective including manufacturing defects and poor workmen ship and also contended that the complainant has to establish the purchase of the mobile on 21.01.2015 of SAMSUNG GALAXY ALFA SM-G850Y for an amount of Rs.39,000/- and further stated that the complainant has to implead the insurance company as a party in the present complaint. The opposite party further stated that the contention of the complainant that the mobile giving problem from the date of purchase is incorrect, false and far from truth and stated that the complainant first registered his complaint with the service centre on 08.07.2015 and it was resolved as there is a problem with ear phone and therefore the ear phones and data cable are replaced under job card no. 4197384825. Again the complainant approached service centre under job card no.4202981486 was resolved on 16.10.2015 was a complaint of hanging and system is slow because of older version of software and the software is updated. Once again the complainant vide complaint no.420770836 dt: 11.01.2016 brought to the mobile to the service centre and the complainant could not wait till the service centre repairs the same due to lack of time and therefore he took away the mobile phone. Once again on 16.01.2016, the complainant approached the problem is very trivial that it required a software                  up gradation. The opposite parties further contended that the IFC is also clean as a standard repairing procedure. In fact, except the above, no complaints are logged in and therefore, the complainant cannot to permitted to state that though he approached the service centers more than ten times, the service center gave job card only for three times and also stated that their authorized service centers are manned by well trained staff and every complaint is recorded in the computers as the authorized service centers will be paid per call depending upon the set being warranty or out of warranty. Hence the service centers gain nothing by not recording of the complaints of the complainant and in fact, it is a loss to the service centers. Hence the hand set is working in good condition and this opposite party is willing to prove the same. The opposite party further contended that as per the pleading the complainant issued notice only to first and second opposite parties and in fact a notice also ought to have been issued to this answering opposite party. In the absence of such legal notice to the 3^rd opposite party, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In fact, the up gradation of software is very essential and the software requires constant up gradation as is the case with the software. Hence the complainant cannot claim that he has suffered and therefore no amount can be awarded under the head of deficiency of service as there is no fault with the mobile hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.    

          5.  The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex.A1to A8 were marked. One Anindya Bose S/o. Asis Kumar Bose, Deputy General Manager filed his evidence on affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no.3 and no documents were marked on behalf of opposite party no.3. Both complainant and opposite party no.3 filed written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

          6.  Now the points for consideration are:

              (i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties    

                     towards the complainant?

              (ii) Whether the cell phone which was purchased by the complainant is defective   

                     in nature?           

             (iii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? If so? To

                    what extent?           

             (iv)  To what Result?

          7. Point No:-(i & ii).  There is no dispute regarding the cell phone purchased by the complainant from the opposite party no.1’s shop which is manufactured by opposite party no.3 under Ex.A1 the bill of Samsung Mobile. The opposite parties 1and 2 remained exparte. As per the contention of the complainant, from the date of the purchase the said cell phone is not working properly, hence he approached the opposite party no.1 and with the suggestion of the opposite party no.1 he approached the service center several times but they did not render the service properly by rectifying the defect in the said cell phone and same was admitted by the opposite party no.3 that he approached the service center on 08.07.2015, 16.10.2015 11.01.2016  and at last  on 16.01.2016 he approached them, but as they were busy with their work the complainant left without getting the service to his mobile. The opposite party no.3 contended that the troubles mentioned by the complainant are simple in nature and can be rectified is not acceptable, because if at all the said defect is simple they might have rectified the defect and returned to the complainant in time. But without doing the same the opposite parties caused inconvenience to the complainant to make him to visit to their service center several times which clearly shows that the said cell phone is having defect which cannot be rectified. Hence the cell phone purchased by the complainant is defective in nature. The opposite parties stated in their written version that they have not received any legal notice from the complainant but as per Ex.A6 the postal receipts clearly reveals that the complainant sent legal notice to the opposite party no.3. The opposite parties failed to prove that they have made an efforts to rectify the defects in the cell phone of the complainant and also failed to prove their bonafides that they attended for service promptly, without doing that they made a simple statement that the said cell phone is not having any manufacturing defect without any proof. After receiving the said notice the opposite party failed to take steps to rectify the defect in the said mobile through their service center, that itself clearly shows that there is deficiency on part of the opposite parties to rectify the defect and also by rendering the services to their customers. The interest shown by the opposite parties while promoting their sales is not shown at the time of rendering services to the customers this itself clearly shows that there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties towards the complainant.  

          8. Point(iii):-   in view of our finding on point no.1 and 2 the complainant is entitled for the price of the cell phone of Rs.39,000/- (rupees thirty nine thousand  only)along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint and take back the defective mobile from the complainant  and for Rs.6,000/- towards compensation and for mental agony and deficiency in service suffered by the complainant  and also Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint. Accordingly this point is answered.

         9.Point (iv):-  In view of our discussion on points no.1 to 3, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for, as such the complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

             In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to refund the cost of the mobile of  Rs.39,000/- (rupees thirty nine thousand only)along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization and take back the defective mobile from the complainant. The opposite parties further directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- (rupees six thousands only)  towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency of service and to pay Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation expenses. The opposite party further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which the compensation amount of Rs.6,000/- (rupees six thousand only)  also shall  carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.          

         Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 28^th day of October, 2016.

          Sd/-                                                                                                                        Sd/-                                                                                                  

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: K. Mahesh Babu (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Anindya Bose (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original Bill issued by S.V. Digital, Tirupati. Dt. 25.01.2015.
	New India Assurance Insurance Paper in Original.
	Daily Ultimate Protection Cover (Original).
	Apps daily solutions scratch card.
	Office copy of Legal Notice. Dt: 23.01.2016.
	Postal Receipts (3 in Number).
	Postal Acknowledgements (2 in Number).
	Warranty Card (Original).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

NIL

 

 

                                                                                                                  Sd/-

       President

 

 

 

 

                                                                 // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                 Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati

 

 

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant.

                   2) The Opposite parties 1 to 3.