Date of filing:- 13/05/2020.                                                                                 Date of Order/Judgement:-31/07/2023.                                         

                                  DISTRICT CONSUMER DIPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

B  A  R  G  A  R  H

CONSUMER COMPLAINT  NO. 37 OF  2020

Ankit Pradhan, S/o Iswar Pradhan, aged about 23(twenty three) years, Occupation-Private Job At/Po. Tora, Ps/Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh (Odisha).

                                                                                                      Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

(1) The Manager, Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., 6th Floor, DLF Centre Sansad

      Marg, New Delhi-110001.

(2) The Zonal Manager, Samsung India Electronic Pvt Ltd., Rasulgarh Over-bridge

      Sector-A,  Rasulgarh, Plot No.65 N.H.5, Bhubaneswar-751007 (Odisha).

(3) The Samsung Service Centre, Bargarh, C/o Anil Associates Ist Floor, Suravi Hotel,

      Near Behera Nursing Home, Bargarh Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh, Odisha-768028.

(4) The Proprietor S.V. Mobile, Main Road, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh.

      768028(Odisha). 

                                                                                                               Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-                          :- Sri M.K. Satpathy and  Associates.

For the Opposite Party No.1 and 2:-     :- Sri Subhendu Kumar Mahanty, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party No.3 and 4:-     :- Ex-parte.

                                       -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra  .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agarwal             .....            .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.31/07/2023.                       -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Anju Agarwal,  Member (w) :-

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has purchased a Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Model Mobile Phone from Opposite Party No.4 on Dt. 21/06/2019 at the price of Rs.59,500/-(Rupees fifty nine thousand five hundred)only bearing IMEI No. 355306068855230. After using the aforesaid mobile for some months the Complainant found that the touch screen as well as the set is hanging. So, the Complainant placed his grievance before  the Opposite Party No.3 in the month of November 2019 but the Opposite party No.3 denied to entertain the Complainant as the company has already quit the production of such brand and service. The Opposite party No.3 assured to provide alternative arrangement by seeking permission from Opposite Party No.1 i.e. the importer and product controller and Opposite Party No.2 is the Zonal head to solve the problem. The Complainant telephonically communicated to the Opposite Party No.2 to entertain as the aforesaid mobile was under the period of warranty. Finally finding no way out the Complainant has caused pleaders notice Dt. 22/02/2020 to the Opposite Parties placing his grievance but the Opposite Parties remained silent.

Being harassed, this Complaint was filed before this Commission.

2. The Case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the Opposite Party No.1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act and Opposite Party No.2 is its Branch Office. In the version of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 it is submitted that the alleged Complaint is one governed by the limited terms of contract of warranty for which reliefs claimed beyond said terms in not maintainable. The Opposite Party No.3 and 4 are independent entities and running their business in their own name and  style. When a Complaint a lodged a job card is issued and that is saved in the system. The Complainant was requested through letter Dt. 04/03/2020 to provide details. The date of purchase of mobile is disputed and it is ascertained that alleged mobile activated since 26/06/2015 and 21/06/2019. Copy of invoice along with sealed and signed warranty card is not served. After expiry of warranty, Complaint is also at liberty to hire services on payment at appropriate changes. Further on the Judgement of AIR 2006 Honble Supreme Court 1586, Arjit Pasayat JJ(Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and others) warranty conditions clearly refers to replacement of defective part and not the car. 2001 (3) CPR 149, SCDRF Kerala (Mrs. Jennifer Alhones Vs M.D M/s. Ind Auto and Anr): Held. Techicical Questions like manufacturing defect when pleaded by Complaint burden is on him to adduce evidence.

2003 NCJ 473(NC) (Suresh Kumar Vishwarkarma Vs Maas Koul) No evidence in    defect in computer Held defect not proved.

2005 (I) CPR 95 ( Rajesh Kumar Yadav Vs Agarwar Automobiles and Another) Held : Where vehicle was purchased in July 1997 and Complaint alleging defect id as filed in May 2002 Complainant could not said to have proved his care. V-VI-1994 (2) CPR 185, SCDRC, West Bengal (Tapan Kumar Chakarborty Vs M/s Exps. Machinary Ltd) Marely because some parts had to be replaced it does not give the right to Complainant to have replacement of freeze by a new one. Hence, there lies no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2.

The Opposite Party No.3 and Opposite Party No.4 did not appear in this case and hence Opposite Party No.3 and Opposite Party No.4 are set exparte.

3. After perusal of the record it reveals that the Complainant has purchased the aforesaid mobile from the retailer of  the Opposite Party No.1. Hence, the Complainant is the Consumer of the Opposite Parties as per the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

As per the written statement filed by Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 the mobile phone was activated on 20/06/2015 but there is no strict proof regarding this the invoice  filed by  the Complainant is the mobile was purchased on Dt. 21/06/2019. The Complainant went to authorized service cannot to lodge claim but the service centre denied to lodge claim so the job card of the aforesaid mobile was not issued. In the pleader notice itself all the details of the said mobile was reflected alongwith the retailers address. Since, the Complainant has purchased the mobile and visited the service centre to recity the problem, pleader notice also served to the Opposite Parties when the Mobile was under the warranty period, and did the same has not been rectified, it clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties.

Further the dealer/retailer from whom the Complainant purchased the mobile is not responsible for any manufacturing defects. Only the manufacturers or authorized service centre is responsible for removal of defect.

Accordingly, it is Ordered.

O R D E R

The Complaint is allowed on contest against Opposite party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2, exparte against Opposite party No.3. The Complaint is dismissed against Opposite Party No.4. The Opposite Parties No.1 and No.2 are directed to replace the aforesaid mobile phone or refund Rs. 59,500/-(Rupees fifty nine thousand five hundred)only towards price of the mobile phone to the Complainant. The Opposite parties No.1 and No.2 directed to pay Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for litigation.

Failing which are entire order will carry 12% P.A. till reliazation.

Order pronounced in open court on this 31^th day of  July  2023.

   Supply free copies to the parties.  

                                                                         Typed to my dictation

                                                                            and corrected by me.                                                                                           

        I  agree/-

(Smt. Jigeesha Mishra)                                                        (Smt. Anju Agarwal) 

     Dt.31/07/2023                                                                        Dt.31/07/2023

  P r e s i d e n t                                                                             Member (W)