IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of July, 2016.
Filed on 25.01.2016
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
C.C.No.27/2016
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Dhanesh 1. The Chief Executive Officer
S/O Danavan Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd
Pattekadu Veliyil A-25, Ground floor, Front Tower
Cherthala Thekku P.O. Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate
Cherthala Thekku Village New Delhi – 110044
(Adv. I. B. Suseel )
(By Adv. D Deepak)
2. Proprietor
Mobile Bazaar
Near Private Bus Stand,
Cherthala P.O.
Alappuzha
3. Proprietor
Express Solutions
147 N, sky Line Tower Shopping
Cherthala P.O., Alappuzha.
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:
The complainant purchased a mobile Phone from the 2nd opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 25.5.2015 for an amount of Rs.12,200/-. The product has one year warranty. The product became defective on 21.12.2015 and the defect was intimated to the 2nd opposite party and as per their direction the phone was entrusted to the 3rd opposite party which is the authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party. There after the 3rd opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards repairing charges. According to the complainant since the product was under warranty, the opposite parties are bound to repair the product under warranty. But till the date the phone has not been repaired and the phone is with the 3rd opposite party. The complainant sustained much mental agony and inconvenience and hence filed this complaint.
2. Notice was served to the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. Notice against the 2nd & 3rd opposite parties served but they did not appear before the Forum and hence opposite parties 2 & 3 were set ex-parte.
3. The version of the 1st opposite party which as follows:-
The Opposite Party admits that the phone purchased by the Complainant was manufactured by the 1st opposite party and the product has one year warranty.However this Opposite Party denies all the further allegations in the complaint.The fact of the matter is that after entrusting the phone for repair with the 3rd Opposite Party and when diagnosis was done it was found that the phone was having physical damage due to liquid log.When this fact was told to the customer and informed that the warranty will not apply in this case because the damage was caused beyond the purview of warranty, the complainant refused to take back the phone and demanded to repair free of cost.Thereafter, the complainant has refused to entertain any calls made by the Opposite Parties in this regards and is adamant that the phone be repaired free of costs.The phone is lying with the Opposite Parties only because the Complainant is refusing to take it back or paying the repair charges.As the warranty does not apply to the phone in question, this Opposite Party has no other option than to charge for the repairs, provided Complainant agrees and pays for the same. The Opposite Parties has not committed any deficiency in service and are the complainants were dismissed with cost.
4.The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Ext. A1 to A3 were marked.Ext.A3 marked subject to objection.The 1st Opposite Party was examined as RW1 and the no documents were marked on the side of the Opposite Parties.Considering the allegation of the complainant and contention of the Opposite Party the Forum has raised the following issues.
- Whether there is any deficiency in the service of the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
5. The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased the Mobile Phone from the 2nd Opposite Party manufactured by the 1st Opposite Party for an amount of Rs.12,200/- on 25.5.2015. The Phone became defective during the warranty period and entrusted to the 3rd Opposite Party for repairing. Later the 3rd Opposite Party demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards repairing charges. Hence filed this complaint and there is deficiency in the service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
6. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Ext.A1 to A3 were marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of acknowledgement of service list dated 21.12.2015. Ext.A2 is the bill dated 25.5.2015. Ext.A3 is the copy of warranty card. From the documents it can be seen that the complainant purchased the Phone from the 2nd Opposite Party manufactured by the 1st Opposite Party for an amount of Rs.12,200/- and the product has 1 year warranty. During the warranty period the Mobile Phone became defective and entrusted to the 3rd Opposite Party for repairing and the 3rd Opposite Party issued Ext.A2. From Ext.A2 it can be see that the complainant entrusted to the Phone on 21.12.2015. According to the complainant at that time the 3rd Opposite Party assured the complainant that the product is under warranty and the complainant is entitled to get full warranty benefits. According to the complainant when the complainant approached to the 3rd Opposite Party to receive the Phone after repairing the 3rd Opposite Party intimated the complainant that he will not get warranty benefits as the phone is waterlogged and demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards repairing charges. In Ext.A2 it is not mentioned that whether the phone is waterlogged. It is pertinent to note that the phone is with the 3rd Opposite Party and they did not even mind to come forward and contest the matters. They did not even file version. The justification given by the 1st Opposite Party for denying the warranty benefits is not substantiated. But on going through the records placed before us it is clear that phone became defective within the warranty period. Therefore the denial of warranty benefits amounts to deficiency in service on the side of the Opposite Parties. According to the complainant he could not use the Phone from 21.12.2015 onwards. Since the product is under warranty the complainant is entitled to get it repaired free of cost. So the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed.Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to repair the Mobile Phone free of cost with a warranty of six months.The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me and pronounced
in Open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Appendix:-
PW1- Dhanesh D (Witness)
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Acknowledgement of Service Request.
Ext.A2 - Copy of the Bill dated 25.5.2015.
Ext.A3 - Copy of the Warranty card (subject to objection)
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - C Sunil kumar (Witness)
-//True copy//-
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
To
Complainant/Opposite party/SF
Typed by: Pj/-
Compd.By:
