Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/131/2016

Saravanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager sales Reliance Retail Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

T.S.Kani & D.Rajasekaran

22 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  05.04.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  22.02.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY  THE 22^nd   DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

 

C.C.NO.131/2016

 

Saravanan,

No.32, B, 1^st Main Road,

Thiruvengada Nagar,

Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. The Manager,

Samsung India Electronic Pvt Ltd.,

2^nd & 3^rd , 4^th Floor, Tower-C,

Vipul Tech Square,Sector – 43, Golf Course Road,

Gurgaon – 122 002.

 

2.The Manager Sales,

Reliance Retail Limited,

(Formerly Reliance Fresh Limited),

3^rd Avenue Plot No.C-8,

Anna Nagar East Chennai – 600 040.

 

3.The Senior Executive – Customer Experience,

Authorised Samsung Service Centre,

Samsung Indi Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

Tower 1, Bascon Maeru Towers,

Kodambakkam High Road,

   Chennai – 600 034.                                                        ……opposite parties                                                                                                                         

Date of complaint                                 : 02.09.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. T.S.Kani, & D.Rajasekaran

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party                 : M/s.V.V.Giridhar, P.Suresh,

                                                                    K.Senthil

 

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party               : K.Ravikumar

 

Counsel for 3^rd Opposite Party                : Ex – parte (on 13.10.2016)                  

         

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to replace the product and for compensation with costs u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st opposite party is a manufacturer of the Mobile Phone. The 2^nd opposite party is the dealer/seller of various mobile phones. The 3^rd opposite party is the authorized service centres of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant had purchased a Samsung S6 mobile phone on 25.05.2015 on payment of Rs.45,954/-   from the 2^nd opposite party/ dealer. After purchase of the mobile while in use, the product developed some problem and unable to use from 01.07.2015. The complainant immediately contacted the 2^nd opposite party and entrusted the mobile as defective on 03.07.2015 and a job card was issued. The complainant wanted for the replacement of the mobile. 

          2. The faulty mobile taken by the sales executive of the show room. The 3^rd opposite party sent appreciation letter to him. For which the  complainant gave suitable reply through e-mail dated 16.07.2015. Even after receipt of such reply the opposite parties have not returned the defective mobile after rectification. Hence the complainant issued a legal notice dated 12.08.2015 and the same was received by the 1^st  opposite party on 20.08.2015. Thereafter the 1^st opposite party sent a reply that they cannot accommodate the request of replacing the product. Still the product is only with the opposite parties. Hence, the opposite parties failed to replace the product and also selling the defective mobile that they have committed deficiency in service and hence this complaint is filed for replacing the product and for compensation with costs. 

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is not the actual person one Mr.Praveen only purchased the product from the 2^nd opposite party and therefore the complainant is not purchaser and cannot be construed as a Consumer.

          4. The 1^st opposite party admits that the product was entrusted to rectify the defects. After receipt of the mobile the service centre had provided the service and rectified the defects and the mobile phone was kept ready in a good condition for delivery. This was also communication by way of e-mail dated 16.07.2015 to the complainant. Further it was also informed that the replacing cannot be done and they will provide only service. It is the complainant who has not taken delivery of the product after rectification and hence the complainant is only at fault and not the opposite parties. Therefore, these opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint.

 

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The 2^nd opposite party is engaged in the business of retail, selling consumer durables, electronic goods. Electronic household appliances of various brands under proper authentication etc., The 2^nd opposite party sell these products manufactured  by various companies and firms including Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., products, by strictly complying with all the norms, rules and regulations in this regard and by adhering to the provisions there of. Being a seller, this 2^nd  opposite party does not keep any product or material for sale which are defective or substandard in quality. The 2^nd opposite party further states that one Mr.Praveen Petitioner, purchased Samsung S6 mobile, bearing IMEI Number.359878060584956, from the 2^nd opposite party vide Transaction No.Txn#21 dated 25.06.2015, for the total value of Rs.45,954/-  through Bajaj Finance vide loan Ref.No.SF23062140. Therefore it is false to state that the complainant herein had purchased the said mobile phone from the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant is not actual purchaser and hence  he cannot be a Consumer. This opposite party is only a dealer which was manufacturer by the 1^st opposite party and hence he has not any committed deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the Samsung S6 Mobile was purchased from the 2^nd opposite party dealer on 25.05.2015 for a consideration of Rs.45,954/- under Ex.A1, by one Mr.P.Praveen and the said mobile was entrusted by the complainant under Ex.A2 for servicing to the 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party sent the mobile for authorized service centre, who is the 3^rd opposite party.

          8. The opposite parties 1 & 2 objected that the complainant is not a Consumer in view of that he had not purchased the mobile phone and Ex.A1 purchase bill issued in the name of P.Praveen who is only the Consumer and therefore the complainant is not a Consumer and on this score this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          9. Section 2 (1) (d) (1) deals about the Consumer. As per the Explanation clause provided to that section  the user of the goods purchased also became the Consumer and therefore in view of such definition this complainant is a Consumer as he used the product and also entrusted to rectify the defects under Ex.A2.

          10. It is not in dispute that the complainant entrusted the mobile for rectification on 03.07.2015 and Ex.A2 job sheet was issued to him. According to the 1^st opposite party the product was serviced and kept ready and a communication Ex.A3 e-mail was also sent to the complainant to collect the unit from service centre and however, the complainant had not collected the unit and adamantly seeking only for replacement of unit and for the same, the complainant sent Ex.A4 e-mail demanding for replacement. The complainant himself filed both the e-mails. Ex.A3 e-mail sent by the opposite parties to the complainant that on 16.07.2015 at 10.10 a.m the unit was ready.  On the very same day evening by 5.00 p.m, the complainant sent reply mail seeking only for replacement of the unit. The complainant have not established,  why he is seeking replacement even after the product was rectified by the service centre and ready for delivery.  The complainant ought to have taken delivery of the product and could have seen, whether, it was working in good condition or not after service. Without doing so the complainant simply demanding for replacement cannot be accepted and the 1^st opposite party also rightly rejected the replacement of the product. Therefore we hold that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

          11. Since, the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency; the complainant is not entitled for any relief as sought by him. However, the complainant specifically argued that till date the mobile is with the opposite parties. The opposite parties also did not deny the same. In such circumstances, We order that, if the complainant approaches opposite parties for delivery of his product the same may delivered to him and excepting such relief, for no other relief the complainant is entitled in this complaint.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed and further ordered that if the complainant approaches the opposite parties for delivery of his mobile phone, the same shall be delivered to him immediately. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 22^nd  day of February 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 25.05.2015                   Purchase of Mobile Bill issued by the 2^nd opposite

                                                    party

 

Ex.A2 dated 03.07.2015                   Acknowledgement of service request

Ex.A3 dated 16.07.2015                   E-copy of Notice to the 3^rd opposite party

Ex.A4 dated 16.07.2015                   E-copy of reply from 3^rd opposite party to

                                                    complainant

 

Ex.A5 dated 12.08.2015                   Warning Lawyer Notice to the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A6 dated 20.08.2015                   Acknowledgement by the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A7 dated 27.10.2015                   Reply to the Warning Lawyer Notice dt.

                                                   12.08.2015, from by the 3^rd opposite party’s

                                                    Service Branch Chennai – 600 034, with postal

                                                    Cover

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st & 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                      …….. NIL ……

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT