Complainant is a resident of Gandharbapur lane, Mokdumpur, English Bazar, Malda. He owned Samsung mobile having its brand name as M-30, IMEI NO -
with all accessories. He purchased the said mobile through his relative in website, online market namely Amazon who issued an invoice bill dated 04/10/2019. OP-1 is an authorized service provider of Samsung Company namely “BABLY MEDIA CENTRE” run by OP-2 as manager. OP-1 having its working place at S.C. Mallick road, Goria, Kolkata,47. OP-2 is manager who working for gains of OP-1 and represented to its centre. All the affair of BABLY MEDIA CENTRE are run and dealt by the manager who is well acquainted with all affairs. This centre is serving point of mobile Samsung who also subscribe apparatus of Samsung. This complainant under such circumstance/position of Ops, after purchase of said mobile found that said mobile is giving trouble from beginning in various ways. So he sought service from Ops. There after the OP-1&2 asked for purchased-voucher and validity-card of warranty period. Accordingly when they satisfied, they took the mobile for repair and issued a deposit slip in respect of mobile and noted down the problem at that time. The receipt bearing no 4302457683 dated 16/05/2020. The complainant handed over the mobile to them. Practically at that time there was no major problem but as they said that they would remove the problem as arose, this complainant left it to them and said to remove difficulty as early as possible. At that point they said that there was only slow charging problem and non-functioning of touch screen due to non-availability of software and after adopting new software the set will run. There after this complainant time to time asks to return on repairing the mobile which was highly required for work at his profession but they did not make it in repairing of service even not returned the mobile. The complainant authorized his friend namely Susovan Roy to get back the set from them but they did not return it. He repeatedly phoned them but there no positive result except oral assurance of return. In this way one year lapsed but no result. Then he gave legal notice to them since he found that Ops mis-appropriated the mobile set. So it is a kind of deficiency in service of them. Accordingly all the Ops committed unfair trade practice in assurance. All acts of Ops caused harassment and mental pain and broke trust of him. Accordingly he prayed compensation from them at the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. The cause of action arose when he purchased the mobile on dated 04/10/2019 and gave for repairing on 16/05/2020. He is entitle to get relief as per his prayer of allotting Rs.5,00,000/- and cost of suit from OP-1 to 3.
In order to substantiate his prayer he placed the documents like as:-
- Voucher of purchases in online.(exbt.1)
- Acknowledgment of receipt for service of mobile. (exbt.2)
- Authorized latter to his friend to hand over the mobile. (exbt.3)
- Original postal receipt dated 15/01/2021. (exbt.4)
- Legal notice of lawyer. (exbt.5)
- Reply of legal notice. (exbt.6)
- Envelop of register post. (exbt.7)
In addition to he examined himself in writing with affidavit under law. Another evidence in writing with affidavit of his friend Susovan Roy who was authorized person to receive the set from the company examined as PW-2.
On the other Samsung company as OP-1,2&3 did not bother to appear or to response at the summonses of this commission to contradict. Consequently ex-parte arose as per receipt of summonses dated 27/12/2021, 28/12/2021.
:DECISION WITH REASON:
Point to be decided:- Whether there any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of Ops?
Admittedly mobile set was purchased from the company through online which was documented by exbt.1 and corroborated by the receipt of mobile set as exbt.2 which is taken for repair by the service centre dated 16/05/2020. On perusal of exbt.2 nowhere this commission find any date of return of mobile set, though we find the column exist for that at exbt.2. On perusal of exbt.2 on the column of terms and condition it is noted that:-
“1. In-warranty support will be provided subject to warranty validation and criteria as defined by Samsung’s authorized service centre (ASC) staff. For warranty validation customer is required to produce valid warranty card / proof purchase at the time of submitting the product to the satisfaction of ASC, failing which product will not be serviced. Repairs will be carried out on best effort basis subject to availability of spares.
2. Customer is requested to collect the product within three days from the date of receiving confirmation on the completion of the repair from ASC, failing which Samsung or its ASC shall not be liable for any loss or damage to the product, and/or any consequential losses of damages arising thereof. Further Samsung or its ASC shall have the right to scrap the unclaimed product or dispose it in any manner without any notice to the customer, without incurring any liability whatsoever towards the customer or anyone else. Defective parts replaced under warranty will be the property of Samsung and will not be returned.
3. For out warranty support estimate pre-approval will not be taken from the customer if estimated repair amount is less than Rs.500/-. If estimated repair amount is more than 500/- then repair will be carried out after necessary approval/advance payment.
4. To enquire the status of repair………………………………… (as on exbt. 2 dated 16/05/2020)
5. The product is accepted for service…………………………… (as on exbt. 2 dated 16/05/2020)
6. It is customer’s responsibility……………………………………..(as on exbt. 2 dated 16/05/2020)
7. It is customer’s responsibility…………………………………..(as on exbt. 2 dated 16/05/2020)
8. Data backup and deletion……………………………………(as on exbt. 2 dated 16/05/2020)
9. Data protection/accesses……………………………….(as on exbt. 2 dated 16/05/2020)
10. This receipt should be produce at the time of colleting the product………….(as on exbt. 2 dated 16/05/2020)
11. Customer undertakes……………………………………………. (as on exbt. 2 dated 16/05/2020)”
It is evident from the column of repair description of defect u/exbt.2 that this mobile set was not under full warranty of defect like as “touch not working properly and slow charging” issue. From the content of complaint and from the evidence of PW-1 it was cleared to this commission that there was slow charging problem and as touch screen was not functioning due to non availability of software in the set, so after loading new software, set will be returned to the customer. In this context complainant said that after depositing the set to company he went to take return to ASC again and again but they did not return rather he got news that they miss appropriated the mobile.
Now on perusal of the terms and condition under exbt.2 it is noticed that within three days of receiving confirmation of repair, it should be taken delivered by the customer otherwise mobile set would be taken by the company for disposal without informing to the customer as per the contract under expt.2. But periphery of this complaint petition we the commission do not find any document in record of repairing information or changing software either given by the company or taken himself by the customer from the ASC. We also do not find any scrap paper in the record that whether ASC repaired the set or giving its information or within three days of that repairing/replacing software customer himself went to ASC for taking the set or not, exbt.3 that is authorization letter to the friend by the customer is not clear to this point. Rather we find from the exbt.6 as filed by the complainant i.e. reply of lawyers letter by the BABLY MEDIA CENTRE that “Sir, we received Diptarka Dutta’s handset with TOUCH NOT WORKING PROPERLY- SLOW CHARGING (liquid damage) issue on 16/05/2020. His handset not covering the warranty due to liquid damage. OCTA (display) and charging port are damaged. We informed him to estimate and collect the handset. He did not approve. We want him to come to the service centre with original job sheet and collect his handset”.
So this letter transpired that company called the customer to take estimate of repairing and to collect the handset after repair but customer did not approved. Naturally we must observed if there remains any fault on the part of the customer to take any estimate from the ASC for repair since the problem arose on the set is not covered by the warranty like installation of software, then ASC cannot be blamed as per contract under exbt.2 duly signed by both the parties as customer and ASC. We the commission do not find any deficiency of service or bad trade practice on the part of Ops as per contract clause of exbt.2 and lastly reply by BABLY MEDIA CENTRE under exbt.6. Complainant miserably fails for any relief as prayed for.
Hence it is ordered,
That the complaint is dismissed without any cost.
Let a copy of judgment/final order be supplied to the party at a free of cost.
