DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V,
: SMT.VIDYA A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N.K, MEMBER.
DATE OF FILING:06.06.2023.
CC/150/2023
Nice Priyan, S/o.Sasiskumar, - Complainant
Kandamkulangara House,
Ayilur Post, Chittur Taluk,
Palakkad-678 510.
(party-in-person)
Vs
1. The Manager sales, -Opposite Parties
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd,
6th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The proprietor, SACS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd,
55-Alagar Koil Road,
Madurai-625 002-Tamilnadu.
(For 1st op by Adv.Joseph Devassy
2nd op is ex-parte)
ORDER
BY SMT.VIDYA A., MEMBER.
1. The complainant purchased a ‘Samsung’ mobile phone manufactured by the 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party dealer on 06.01.2021 for an amount of Rs.1,04,999/-. Within short span of time, the display of the mobile phone became defective and this matter was intimated to the authorised service centre of the opposite parties. They promised to cure the defect vide Job sheet dated 12.11.2022 and the mobile was entrusted to them for repair. They returned the mobile after ten days without repairing and informed him that the defect was due to the hardware imbalance. According to the complainant, the issues in the display of the mobile are due to its manufacturing defect. The complainant purchased the mobile phone by spending huge amount believing the advertisement made by the opposite parties regarding its quality and assurance of replacement in case of defect. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not rectifying the defect and the complainant had suffered severe mental agony and financial loss due to the acts of the opposite party.
So, he filed this complaint for directing;
1. The opposite parties to refund Rs.1,04,999/- after taking back the mobile phone.
2. To pay Rs.45,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and
3. To pay the cost of the litigation.
2. After admitting complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party appeared and filed version. The 2nd opposite party did not appear or file version. So, their name was called in open court and set ex-parte. Eventhough the matter was posted for ‘settlement’, it was not settled.
3. The 1st opposite party in their version admitted the purchase of the mobile phone worth Rs.1,04,999/- from the 2nd opposite party on 06.01.2021. They also admitted that the complainant approached their service centre with issue in the display; but they denied the rest of the allegations in the complaint.
When the complainant approached the service centre with complaint of vertical lines on display, the complaint was duly registered and after examination by the Engineer, it was found that the Octa and battery of handset needs to be replaced and the complaint reported was out of warranty. The said issue happened due to the mishandling of the handset by the complainant.
Since the warranty was over, the complainant was given an estimate to repair, but he was not ready for chargeable repair and was demanding free of cost repair. There is no manufacturing defect in the mobile. The service centre was ready to provide service on chargeable basis. There is no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed. The complaint has to be dismissed with cost of this opposite party.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following points were framed for consideration.
1. Whether the complainant has succeeded in proving the manufacturing defect in the mobile phone?
2. Whether the issues in the mobile phone is due to the mishandling by the complainant as alleged by the opposite party?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the defective parts replaced under warranty?
4. Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
6. Reliefs as to cost and compensation.
5. Complainant’s evidence comprised of proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A4. No objection was raised in marking the documents. The 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit and Exts.B1 to B4 marked form their side. Ext.B3 is a series of four documents. Evidence closed and heard the parties.
6. Point No.1
Complainant’s case is that the mobile phone which he purchased from the 2nd opposite party and manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 06.01.2021 became defective within short span of time. He purchased the phone by paying huge amount of Rs.1,04,999/-. The complainant produced the tax invoice showing the purchase which is marked as Ext.A1.
According to him, the mobile set developed display error and it was reported to the authorised service centre of Samsung on 01.08.2022. On 21.11.2022, his device was submitted to them for inspection. He produced the, “Acknowledgment of service request” issued by the opposite party’s service centre ‘Sree communication’ which is marked as Ext.A2. In this, the defect description is shown as ‘vertical lines on the display’ and the warranty status is shown as ‘out of warranty’. The opposite party also admits the defect in the mobile and after inspection found that the Octa and battery of the handset need to be replaced for curing the defect. Complainant alleges that the issues in the phone are due to its manufacturing defect. But he has not adduced any evidence to prove this. No expert commission was taken out to prove his contention. So, the complainant failed to prove that the defect in the phone is due to its manufacturing defect. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
7. Point No.2
The opposite parties in their version raised the contention that the issues in the phone is due to the mishandling of the mobile phone without proper care. But they did not adduce any evidence in support of this and did not take any steps to cross examine the complainant. Hence, point No.2 is found against the opposite party.
8. Point No.3
The 1st opposite party in their version had stated that their Engineer inspected the phone and found that the Octa and battery of the handset need to be replaced to cure the defect. The complainant purchased the phone on 06.01.2021 and the defect was reported on 22.11.2022, which means the defect occurred after a period of one year and 10 months. Ext.A1 and A2 confirms the fact. As per the opposite party, the phone has 1 year warranty. The complainant did not produce the warranty card or did not raise the contention that the product became defective within the warranty period or it has an extended warranty.
9. Since the product is out of warranty, the service centre of opposite party offered chargeable repair which was not acceptable to the complainant. On reverse of Ext.B2, the opposite party had given the estimate for replacing the part which comes to Rs.24,933/-. The complainant has not stated anything about this in this affidavit. Since the product is out of warranty, the complainant is not entitled to get the parts repaired free of cost. Point No.3 is found accordingly.
10. Point Nos.4 to 6
As per above discussions, the complainant failed to prove the manufacturing defect in the mobile. The opposite parties were ready to repair the product on chargeable basis as the warranty of the product was over. So, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 6th day of August, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
VIDYA A., MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Computer print of Tax invoice issued by the the 2nd opposite party dated 06.01.2021.
Ext.A2: Computer print of acknowledgment from the Samsung Service Agent, Palakkad dated 22.11.2022.
Ext.A3: Copy of Lawyer notice and receipt dated 10.01.2023.
Ext.A4: Acknowledgment card.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party:
Ext.B1: Power of attorney.
Ext.B2: Job card dated 22.11.2022.
Ext.B3(a) to B3(d) series: Images.
Ext.B4 series: Estimate dated 22.11.2022.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : Nil.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
