Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/42/2018

K.Srinivasulu, S/o Subramanyam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorized Signatory, Big C Moiles Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

G.Guru prasad

28 Jun 2019

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                                                           Filing Date: 25-06-2018                                                                                                                                                                                       Order Date: 28-06-2019

 

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

Present: - Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

                                                                                                Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

FRIDAY THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

 

C.C.No.42/2018

Between

K.Srinivasulu,

S/o. Subramanyam,

D.No. 19-4-148/9,

Obulesu Colony,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                        … Complainant

 

And

 

1. The Authorized Signatory,

Big –C Mobiles Pvt.Ltd.,

D.No. 11-1-331,

Near Nalukkalla Mandapam,

Gandhi Road,

Tirupati – 517 501.

 

2. The Authorized Signatory,

Samsung Mobiles Service Centre,

Central Park Building,

Ground Floor, Tilak Road,

Tirupati.

 

3. Authorized Signatory,

Samsung India Electronic Pvt.Ltd.,

6^th Floor, DLF Centre,

Sansad Marg,

New Delhi – 110 001.                                                  … Opposite parties

 

        This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 19.06.2019 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.G.Guru Prasad, counsel for the complainant, and Counsel for the opposite party No.1 party in person, Sri. P.Anand, counsel for the opposite party No.2, Sri.A.Suresh, counsel for the opposite party No.3 having stood over till this day and for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed by the complainant under sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to replace the new set of mobile in the place of defective mobile  or to refund the cost of mobile of Rs. 16,900/- or to rectify the defective display glass screen of the mobile phone along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for causing mental agony and deficiency in service and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards legal expenses .

        2.The brief facts of the case are:  the complainant submits that, the opposite party No.1who is the dealer of Samsung Mobile Phone, the opposite party No.2 is the authorized service centre of Samsung Phones at Tirupati and opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer of Samsung Mobile Phones.

        The complainant submits that, he purchased Samsung Smart Mobile Phone model GALAXY J-7 MAX Black No. 353107092359716 for Rs. 16,900/- on 11.02.2018 from opposite party No.1 and the said phone got warranty period of one year. But the opposite party No.1 has not issued warranty card to him and stated that, cash bill is sufficient for warranty. The complainant submits that on 08.05.2018 he noticed small cracks in the display screen, hence he approached the opposite party No.2 on 08.05.2018 itself, but they refused to repair the same with free of cost even though scratches occurred within warranty period. Hence he caused a legal notice on 25.04.2018 to the opposite parties, after receipt of the same by all of them, the opposite party No.3 issued reply notice and stated that, the scratches may have occurred due to misuse of the mobile phone by the complainant .Hence the warranty will not cover for the defects occurred for the misuse by the complainant which is nothing but unfair trade practice as they sold the defective mobile to him. Hence he filed the present complaint.

        3. Opposite party No.1, who is the dealer, filed the written version  by admitting the purchase of the said mobile by the complainant from their shop and further stated that, after purchase of the said mobile, the complainant never approached them by making any complaint to the said phone and further stated that normally  every mobile phone carries a warranty card  inside the box with certain terms and conditions which was supplied by the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.3 and also if at all any problem will arise the complainant has to approach authorized service centre i.e. opposite party No.2 for repairs of the said mobile phone. Hence except the date of purchase, the complainant never approached them by making any complaint in the said phone as the opposite party No.1 has neither manufacturer nor authorized service centre and it is only the dealer of such phones. The opposite party No.1 further stated that as per the documents produced by the complainant it clearly shows that, the complainant has already consulted authorized service centre who is opposite party No.2 for repairs who is the authorized agent of opposite party No.3 manufacturer. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part towards the complainant.

         4.  Opposite party No.2 filed the written version stating that the complainant approached to their service centre on 08.05.2018 and reported the issue of the display of the handset and it was thoroughly checked by their technicians and found handset was physically damaged on account of mishandling or misuse on part of the complainant only. The warranty for the said handset has become void as per terms and conditions of the warranty. The opposite party No.2 further submits that due to the above reason any repairs would be made on chargeable basis as per warranty policy of the said handset. Accordingly repair estimate was shared with the complainant, but the complainant is not interested to avail the said service and without handing over the mobile to them, he left the premises. But the opposite party further stated that, the complainant in his complaint falsely alleged that the above said defect occurred due to manufacturing defect in the mobile. But he miserably failed to establish that the mobile is having manufacturing defect and in that connection he has not obtained any expert report to show that there is manufacturing defect in the  mobile, till today and the said mobile is in the custody of the complainant and it clearly shows that the mobile is properly functioning. Hence there is no deficiency in service on part of them as they are ready to resolve the problem on chargeable basis.

        5. The opposite party No.3, who is the manufacturer filed the written version by denying the contentions of the complainant and further stated that,  the warranty given by the opposite party is subject to the terms and conditions in the warranty card which are binding  as per contract between the parties. Therefore any claim for the product is to  subject to the terms and conditions of the warranty and further stated that the complainant approached their authorized service centre on 08.05.2018 and it was found that  the touch screen has been broken, due to physical damage which renders the mobile out of warranty and therefore he cannot claim any relief basing on the terms and conditions of the warranty. Therefore any services regarding replacement of parts is only on payment basis because warranty is void due to physical damage caused to handset by mishandling the device. Without admitting the liability but as a goodwill gesture, the opposite party No.3 stated that they are ready and willing to attend the repairs by giving 40% discount. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

        6.  The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex: A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the opposite party No.1 one M. Kishore Raju, S/o.M.Sankar Raju, Stores Manager filed his evidence on affidavit and on behalf of opposite party No.2, One         B. Goutham Kumar, S/o. B.Rajasekhar, Manager in the Samsung Service Centre filed evidence on affidavit and on behalf of opposite party No.3 Anup Kumar Mathur, S/o. Late Mr.R C Mathur, Director filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex:B1 to B3 were marked on behalf of opposite party No.3. Both parties filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

      

7. Now the point for consideration is:-

        Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties? If so, to what extent, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

                   8.Point:-   There is no dispute regarding the purchase of the cell phone from the opposite party No.1  and the same was admitted by them. As per the contention of the complainant, after three months of the purchase, he observed cracks on the screen of the cell phone, hence he approached the opposite party No.2 who is the authorized service centre, but they failed to rectify the same on free of cost as the said defects arose within warranty period of one year which is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of opposite parties as they sold defective mobile. Coming to the defence taken by opposite party No.2, after testing the said mobile phone on 08.05.2018, they gave an acknowledgment and estimation slip for Rs.4,735/- for the completion of the repairs and changing of the screen. But the complainant has taken back the said mobile phone from the service centre, as he is not willing to repair the same on chargeable basis and in order to prove that contention the opposite party No.3 filed Ex:B3 estimation slip along with acknowledgement receipt issued to the complainant. 

                   The opposite party No.2 and 3 who is the service centre and manufacturer respectively stated that only due to misuse and mishandling of the mobile phone, physical damage occurred to handset and also the complainant failed to establish the fact that the said phone is having manufacturing defect with any supportive expert opinion. If at all there is any manufacturing defect, it must be proved by the person who complained about the defect in the said mobile. But in this particular case, the complainant failed to prove that there is a manufacturing defect in the said cell phone. Hence without any corroborative evidence we cannot come to the conclusion that the opposite parties sold the defective mobile to the complainant. In the written version the opposite party No.3 clearly mentioned that the warranty will not cover physical damage due to mishandling of the mobile by the complainant. As the above said defects might be caused because of the physical damage only and as such warranty is not applicable and  the opposite party filed Ex:B1 the warranty terms and conditions. In clause (4) of  Page No.3 clearly shows that “ warranty shall be void, if any defects arose due to certain conditions/types (water logging)” etc. Hence the warranty is not applicable in the present complaint as scratches may have occurred due to misuse of mobile by the complainant. The opposite parties 2&3 stated that even today they are ready to rectify the defect on chargeable basis and further stated that as a good will gesture they are ready to rectify the defect by giving 40% discount on chargeable basis.  Except the allegations the, complainant has not filed any expert report to prove his contention that the cell phone is defective one. Hence without any supportive document we cannot come to the conclusion that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile because the nature of the defects itself shows that, the scratches may have occurred due to misuse of the mobile by the complainant. Anyhow burden lies in the complainant to prove his contention that there is manufacturing defect. But he failed prove the same with corroborative evidence. In the written version of opposite party No.3 stated that as a goodwill gesture they are ready willing to attend the reports by offering 40% discount on chargeable basis the estimation given by the opposite party No.2 for the repairs of the said mobile phone comes to Rs.4,735-40% = 2,841/-. Hence to that extent the complaint can be relief.

                   In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 2 and 3 to carry out the repairs of subject mobile phone model GALAXY J-7 MAX Black No. 353107092359716 of the complainant as per estimation detailed in Ex:B2 by receiving Rs.2,841/- (Rupees two thousand eight hundred and forty one only) which is the 40% discount of the estimated bill for Rs.4,735/- (Rupees four thousand seven hundred and thirty five only). The opposite parties 2 and 3 are further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and rest of the claim is hereby dismissed.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 28^th day of June, 2019.

            Sd/-                                                                                                          Sd/-                                              

    Lady Member                                                                                                 President (FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  Sri K. Srinivasulu (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1:  Sri M. Kishore Raju (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-2:  Sri B. Goutham Kumar (Evidence Affidavit filed).

RW-3:  Sri Anup Kumar Mathur (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original Credit Card Bill/Cash Invoice Bill issued by Opposite Party No.1 infavour of the complainant. Dt: 11.02.2018.
	Legal Notice issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 along with Postal Receipts 3 in Number. Dt: 25.04.2018.
	Postal Acknowledgement Card in Original. Dt: 27.04.2018.
	Reply Notice issued by the Opposite Party No.3 to Complainant Counsel. Dt: 14.05.2018.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	True copy of Samsung Product Warranty Information.
	Color photo copy of Photos of Physical damage of handset, Acknowledgement of service request of Samsung and Estimation of Repair Cost (True Copy).
	Office copy of Reply Notice Dt: 14.05.2018 issued by the Opposite Party No.3 to Complainant.

 

                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                          President (FAC)

 

              // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

         Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant,

                  2) The Opposite parties 1 to 3.