Date of filing: 28.02.2014.
Date of disposal: 08.9.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Monday, the 8th day of September, 2014
C.C.No.56 of 2014
Between:
K. Anantha Babu, S/o late Sundara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 39 years, Profession by Advocate, R/o.D.No.8-17-49, Ismail Street, Wynchipet, Vijayawada – 1.
…..Complainant.
And
1. The Manager, Big-C Mobiles Pvt., Ltd., Authorized Dealer of Samsung Mobiles, D.No.29-7-37-76, Near Vijaya Talkies, Elurur Road, Vijayawada – 2.
2. The Manager, Samsung Mobiles Service Center, D.No.29-2-22-2, Eluru Road, Ramamandiram Street, Vijayawada – 2.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt., Ltd., Rep: by its Authorized Signatory, Customer Satisfaction Care, 2nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Sector – 43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002.
.. … Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 25.8.2014, in the presence of Sri P. Santha Ram, advocate for complainant; opposite party no.1 appeared as inperson; Sri Bhaskar Potluri, advocate for opposite parties 2 and 3; and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties 1 to 3 directing them to replace the defected mobile with new mobile i.e. Samsung GT S 7562, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony caused to him, for costs and other reliefs.
The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
1. The complainant purchased a Samsung Mobile i.e. GT S 7562 UWAINS from the 1st opposite party, which is manufactured by 3rd opposite party for Rs.9,700/- on 3-8-2013 vide invoice No.S1/VJ2/8203 and cash bill No.0100843. It was worked only few days and thereafter started giving troubles in touch, not functioning the display the names and options while making calls and when he make calls to the other party, even after completion of conversation, the call is not disconnecting. As such he approached the 1st opposite party who referred the same to 2nd opposite party service center. The complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and handed over the same for repair under customer registration No.4166176727, dt.31.12.2013 and customer registration slip No.402276. On the next day the 2nd opposite party made a phone call to the complainant to take away the mobile and when the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party, they represented the complainant to get repair from outside and replied adamantly. Thereafter when the complainant tried to connect the Internet, it was also not connected properly. The complainant further submits that there is a warranty to the cell phone for one year and to the battery for six months and though the cell phone is having warranty, the 2nd opposite party has not repaired the phone. It is further submitted that the complainant being an advocate lost number of calls from the clients and thereby he suffered mental agony. The complainant got issued a legal notice dt.11.1.2014 to the opposite parties calling upon them to replace the cell phone with new one. The opposite parties 1 to 3 received the notice and the 1st opposite party issued reply with a suggestion to meet the 2nd opposite party. Then the complainant went to the 2nd opposite party to hand over the cell phone, but the staff did not respond properly. Hence, the complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party filed version denying the material allegations made in the complaint and contended that the manufacturer will provide the warranty and the authorized service centers will repair the defect within warrant period and that the 1st opposite party is only a retailer and it is involved in selling of various brands of cell phones. It is further contended that, after receipt of notice, they have given a reply asking the complainant to hand over the cell phone in their showroom at Vijayawada, but the complainant not handed over the same. It is further contended that the cell phone of complainant may be sent to an expert for proper opinion and thereby prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The opposite parties 2 and 3 filed version denying the material allegations of the complaint and further contended that they have attended the complaint of complainant on 31-12-2013 and delivered the phone to him on 2-1-2014 and they attended the complaint that the ‘blank display when incoming calls are connecting’ by cleaning the PBA (mother board) and the description with regard to the problem faced by complainant is an afterthought and no such description was recorded when the complaint is registered and that when the delivery was taken by the complainant, it is specifically endorsed that the job has been done to the satisfaction of the complainant and there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant filed his chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A6 on his behalf. The Showroom Manager of 1st opposite party filed chief affidavit, but no documents were marked. The employee of 2nd opposite party filed chief affidavit and got marked Ex.B1.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record. Opposite party no.1 filed written arguments.
5. Now the points that stood for consideration are
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in selling defective cell phone and in not repairing the same?
- If so, to what relief.
Points No.1
6. In the present case, as seen from the record, there is no dispute with regard to purchase of subject cell phone by the complainant under Ex.A1 cash bill as both the parties not disputing the same. Further according to both parties, there is warranty period of one year in respect of cell phone and six months for battery. As per the complainant, the cell phone started giving troubles within few days i.e. with regard to display, touch and disconnecting of calls and he approached the 1st opposite party who advised him to approach the 2nd opposite party service center and on 31-12-2013 he approached the 2nd opposite party and handed over the same for repair under Ex.A2, but on the next day he received a phone call and he approached the 2nd opposite party who stated the complainant to get the repair outside. In this regard, the contention of opposite parties 2 and 3 is that admittedly the complainant given the cell phone for repairs and they have promptly attended the complaint and handed over the cell phone in good condition and as such there in no deficiency in service on their part.
7. Admittedly the 1st opposite party is only a retailer who does not know the manufacturing defects in the material sold by them. If there is any manufacturing defect, the same has to be rectified by the authorized service center. In this case, the 1st opposite party properly guided the complainant to visit the 2nd opposite party. According to complainant, he handed over the set to the 2nd opposite party on 31.12.2013 under Ex.A2. The opposite parties 2 and 3 are not disputing the same and on the other hand, they got marked Ex.B1, which contains the customer information slip. The contention of opposite parties 2 and 3 is that they have attended the complaint promptly and after satisfying with the job, the complainant took delivery of same. Ex.B1 service request discloses that the complainant handed over the set on 31.12.2013 with a defect description that “Blank display when I/O calls connecting”. Ex.B1 also contains a QC check list, which was signed by the complainant acknowledging the services done by service center. The complainant not disputed the said check list or other documents. As such it is clear that the complainant got repaired the cell phone at 2nd opposite party and took delivery of same. Hence, the contention of the complainant that the 2nd opposite party asked him to take delivery of cell phone on 1.1.2014 and got repair at outside cannot be accepted and except the oral assertions, there is no material placed by the complainant to substantiate his contention that the 2nd opposite party people refused to repair the cell phone. As such we find no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3.
8. Further perusal of record discloses that after receipt of notice under Ex.A3, the 1st opposite party got issued reply under Ex.A6 where under it is mentioned that in order to maintain good customer relations, they are ready to offer to get the servicing done and requested the complainant to hand over the mobile phone in their show room at Vijayawada for sending it for servicing. But it seems that the complainant has not handed over the cell phone to 1st opposite party so far. Hence, in view of the above circumstances, we inclined to allow the complaint with the following directions.
Point No.2
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the complainant to handed over the subject cell phone to the 1st opposite party show room within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order and the 1st opposite party is directed to receive the same and get it repaired with free of cost and handed over the same to complainant with a defect free one under proper acknowledgment within 15 days from the date of receipt of cell phone. The other claims of complainant are hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs and compensation. If the 1st opposite party failed to comply with the order, the complainant is at liberty to approach this Forum for redressal of his grievance.
Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 8th day of September, 2014.
PRESIDENT (FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -None- For the opposite party: -None-
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 03.08.2013 Original copy of bill issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.A2 31.12.2013 Customer registration slip.
Ex.A3 11.01.2014 Copy of legal got issued by complainant to OPs.
Ex.A4 Postal acknowledgement
Ex.A5 06.02.2014 Photocopy of letter issued by complainant to Post Master and reply by Post Master.
Ex.A6 Original copy of reply issued by OP.1 to complainant.
On behalf of the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 31.12.2013 Photocopy of service request.
PRESIDENT (FAC).
