DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR., B.A., B.L., .....MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,B.Com. ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.48/2022
THIS FRIDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JULY 2022
Hitendra Kumar Sharma,
Q.No.9/4, Type-V, HVF Estate,
Avadi, Chennai -600 054. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.The Branch Manager,
HCL Services Limited, C-34, Raj Nagar, RDC,
Sumsung Authorized Service Center,
Ghaziabad – 201 001 (U.P).
2.The Branch Manager,
Croma Store, Pacific Mall,
Plot No.1, Dr.Burman Marg, Site-IV S,
Ghaziabad – 201001 (U.P).
3.The Branch Manager,
Croma Store, Khanna Building, AA-5,
2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar,
Chennai -600 040.
4.The Branch Manager,
Samsung Authorized Service Center,
HI-tech Solutions, Plot No.1741,
Anna Nagar West, 18th Main Road,
Chennai -600 102. ..........Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Party in Person.
Counsel for the 1st & 4th opposite parties : exparte.
Counsel for he 2nd & 3rd opposite parties : Mr.N.Maheswaraiah, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 27.07.2022 in the presence of complainant appeared who in person and Mr.N.Maheswaraiah counsel for the 2nd & 3rd opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in selling a mobile phone with manufacturing defects to the complainant along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.10100/- towards cost of the mobile phone, Rs.15,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and Rs.85,000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that he purchased one Samsung Mobile Phone from CROMA Store at Ghaziabad on 23.02.2017 for a sum of Rs.9750/-. On 21.10.2017 the complainant has noted that the mobile phone was not charging properly and was overheated. On approaching the 2nd opposite party on 23.10.2017 it was told that such models are having design problems and suggested to approach the Samsung Authorised Service Center as the mobile was within the warranty period. Accordingly the phone was given to the 1st opposite party who is the Samsung Authorised Service Center at Ghaziabad. At the time of handing over the mobile phone the same was infact in good condition and was functioning properly. The mobile phone was opened and the service personal informed that the charging track of the PCB inside the mobile phone is in a poor/damaged condition and needs to be replaced at the cost of Rs.2,000/-. It is further submitted that the charging track of the PCB is inside the mobile and not accessible to the user hence there is no scope of mishandling or manufacturing defects and it is only due to the poor design or old PCB in the mobile or due to some manufacturing defects. The mobile phone was returned without repair and the phone was absolutely non-functional as the battery was fully discharged. The complainant tried to contact with the Samsung customer care & Croma center customer care several times but there was no response. When the complainant contacted the 3rd opposite party through email reply was given by them to submit the mobile phone with the Croma Store, Annanagar, Chennai and that the repair work would be taken care of and the mobile phone was handed over to the Croma Store, Annanagar, Chennai on 15.01.2018. After a long time it was informed that the service center was asked for Rs.4800/- towards the cost of repair. Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the present complaint was filed by the complainant for the reliefs as mentioned above.
Defence of the 2nd & 3rd opposite parties:
The 2nd and 3rd opposite party has filed written version disputing the complaint allegations stating that no case is made out against them. It is submitted by them that the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties have always endeavoured to fulfil every requirements of the customers to choose best products meeting their requirements and budget. It is submitted by them that their employees were efficient and well trained and was advised in helping the customer. It is submitted by them that the 1st and 4th opposite parties are only responsible for any manufacturing defects. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties merely involved in the demonstration, guidance and support to the customers through its hired employees and the customer themselves verifies the same and then the transaction is completed with handing over of the goods bought in proper package and the cost was received by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. This concludes the transaction between the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. This opposite parties ensures that they provide effective after sale support to the customers in case of defects in the products which they have readily done in the present case. Thus contending that they are not liable for the defects in the mobile phone and contending that only the manufacturer was responsible for the manufacturing defect within warranty period, the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties sought for dismissal of the complaint against them.
On the side of complainant/Party in person proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked. On the side of 2nd and 3rd opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked. The 1st and 4th opposite party were set exparte for non filing of vakalath and written version on 02.04.2019 and 16.05.2019 respectively.
Point for consideration:
Whether the complainant is successful in proving the allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in selling a mobile phone with manufacturing defects to the complainant and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point.1:
On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;
Online purchase invoice from the mobile phone dated 23.02.2017 was marked as Ex.A1;
The acknowledgement of service request by the Samsung Service Center dated 23.10.2017 was marked as Ex.A2;
The e-mail correspondences was between the parties was marked as Ex.A3;
Good acknowledgement notice from CROMA Store, Chennai was marked as Ex.A4;
E-mail from CROMS Store, Chennai on behalf of Samsung Service Center, Chennal quoting the repair estimate at Rs.4800/- was marked as Ex.A5;
The notice to the opposite party through sent to email prior to filing of the complaint dated 18.02.2018 was marked as Ex.A6;
Response from Samsung India by email dated 19.02.2018 was marked as Ex.A7;
Notice to the opposite parties dated 23.02.2018 was marked as Ex.A8;
Receipt for the delivery of the notice dated 24.02.2018 was marked as Ex.A9;
Power of Attorney to file the case on behalf of Advocate Manish Kumar Sharma was marked as Ex.A10;
On the side of the 2nd & 3rd opposite parties following documents were filed in support of his contention;
Two documents invoice dated 23.02.2017 issued by the CROMA in-store to Manish Kumar Sharma along with exchange policy was marked as Ex.B1;
The email communication dated 16.02.2018, 21.02.2018 and 25.02.2018 made by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties was marked as Ex.B2;
Heard the oral arguments made by the complainant/Party in person and the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. It was submitted by the complainant/party in person that the mobile phone was not functioning properly within the warranty period and the defects was that the phone was not getting charged. It was contended that the opposite parties denied that the phone was supplied with manufacturing defects though the mobile phone was covered under the warranty period. Thus the complainant prayed for the complaint to be allowed.
The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties argued that being dealers of the mobile phone they were no responsible for the defects in the product and submitted that the manufacturer was only responsible for replacement and he quoted exchange policy Annexure with invoice which reads as follows.
“Any defects arising in the product, post-delivery and installation, will be serviced by the manufacturer/Brand service center as per the manufacturer’s warranty and Croma shall not be liable in any way”
Thus he contended that they were no way responsible for the service of the manufacturing defects found in the mobile phone purchased by the complainant from the 1st opposite party being the dealer. On perusal of the document produced by the complainant we could see that the mobile phone has purchased in the name of one Advocate MANISH KUMAR SHARMA. As per version of the complainant within warranty period of one year the mobile phone was got over heated and was not getting charged but the other functions are normal. When it was given to the Croma Store at Ghaziabad, they directed the complainant to approach the service center. When the service center was contacted through email a reply was given by them stating that the pictures of the device shows the device was damaged and the device would be repaired on chargeable basis and that the service center has denied free service as there is some internal manufacturing defect and further stated that the Samsung warranty will not include the physical damage/impact damage/water or liquid locked issue under warranty. It is seen that a reply was also sent on the part of the complainant stating that the charging track of the PCB inside the mobile is not assessable and there is no scope for mishandling by the consumer. It is also seen that the authorised service center also informed the complainant the charging track of the PCB is in poor/damage condition due to over heating or some other design problem and wanted Rs.2000/- to get it repaired.
Thus from the available evidence and pleadings we could see that the defects in the mobile phone was that it was not properly charging due to some internal defects in the mobile phone and there is no chance for the customer to get it damaged. In such circumstances the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties who appeard before this Commission had admitted the defect in the mobile phone but denied that they are responsible for the manufacturing defects as they are only the dealers. In the present case the manufacturer of the mobile phone was not made as a party to the complaint. The 1st opposite party is the Service Centre at Ghaziabad and the 2nd opposite party is the dealer and the 3rd opposite party is the Croma Center at Chennai and the 4th opposite party is the Authorized Service Centre at Chennai. The complainant allegations were not clear as to what was the exact manufacturing defect and also who committed the deficiency in service. Hence it is not proved by the complainant that the mobile phone purchased by him was supplied with some manufacturing defects and that any of the opposite parties was responsible for the same as the manufacturer was not made a party to the proceedings.
With regard to the deficiency in service alleged by the complainant against the opposite parties this Commission did not find out any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant against the 1st opposite party for the reason that he is a mere service center at Ghaziabad who informed the complainant that the charging track of the PCB inside the mobile phone is poor/damaged condition due to over heating and it would cost Rs.2,000/- for repair and hence no deficiency in service could be alleged against him. With regard to the 2nd opposite party he is a dealer who sold the mobile phone and hence he could not be made liable for any manufacturing defects of the product as alleged by the complainant and the 3rd opposite party is the Croma store at Chennai and was not related to the transaction as there is no contract between the complainant and the 3rd opposite party and the 4th opposite party is the authorised service center who raised a quotation for repairing the mobile phone for cost of Rs.4800/-. Hence we hold that the complaint has to be dismissed for not adding the necessary parties and not making clear averments against any of the opposite parties herein. Thus we answer the point holding that the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties by sufficient pleadings and evidences.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 20th day of July 2022.
Sd- Sd- Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 23.02.2017 Online mobile purchase invoice of Croma store. Xerox
Ex.A2 23.10.2017 Acknowledgement of service request from samsung service center, Ghaziabad. Xerox
Ex.A3 09.10.2018 e-mail to Croma &reply on 10.01.2018. Xerox
Ex.A4 15.01.2018 Good acknowledgement note from Croma store, Chennai and evidence of warranty. Xerox
Ex.A5 16.02.2018 Email from Croma store Chennai on behalf of samsung service center Chennai. Xerox
Ex.A6 18.02.2018 Notice to opposite parties through email prior to filing case. Xerox
Ex.A7 19.02.2018 Response from samsung India by E mail. Xerox
Ex.A8 23.02.2018 Final notice to opposite parties. Xerox
Ex.A9 24.02.2018 Receipt of speed post and delivery report. Xerox
Ex.A10 29.08.2018 Power of Attorney to file case on behalf of Advocate Manish Kumar Sharma, Rajasthan. Xerox
List of documents filed by the 2nd & 3rd opposite parties;
Ex.B1 .................. Copy of invoice along with enchange policy Xerox
Ex.B2 ................. Copy of emails Xerox
Sd- Sd- Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
