IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday, the 30th day of September, 2016.
Filed on 15-12-2015
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
C.C.No.358/15
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Antony C.D 1. The Chief Executive Officer
S/O Daniel Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd
Kattumkal Veedu A-25, Ground floor, Front Tower
Canal Ward, Arattuvazhy.P.O Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate
Alappuzha- 688004 New Delhi – 110044
(Adv. Vinoy Varghese) (Adv. I. B. Suseel )
2. Proprietor
Hybrid Systems,
City Centre
General Hospital Junction,
Alappuzha-688001
3. Xpress Solutions
147N,Skyline tower
Shopping complex
Behind Devi temple,
Cherthala-688524
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:
The complainant purchased a mobile Phone from the 2nd opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs.12,500/- on 14/8/2015. The opposite party assured one year warranty for the product and issued warranty card. After 2 months from the date of purchase the product became defective and entrusted to the 3rd opposite party which is the authorized service center of the 1st opposite party. After 2 days when the complainant approached and 3rd opposite party for getting the phone repaired, the 3rd opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.6000/- towards repairing charges. Since the product is under warranty the complainant is not willing to pay the amount as demanded by the 3rd opposite party. The act of the opposite party caused much mental agony and hence filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
2. Notice was serve to the 1st opposite party and they appeared before the Forum and filed version. The notice against 2nd and 3rd opposite parties served but they did not appear before the Forum and hence opposite parties 2 and 3 were set ex-parte.
3. The version of the 1st opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. It is true that the complainant has brought the mobile phone to the service center of the 1st opposite party after inspection it was found that the phone is liquid logged, so the warranty condition is violated. The product cannot be repaired under warranty and requested for payment and for which the complainant was not amenable. The warranty conditions will not apply in this case and the complainant has not suffered any hardships as alleged by him. There is no manufacturing defect in the phone and the 1st opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service. So the complaint may be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and document Ext A1 - A3 were marked.
5. Considering the allegations of the complainant and contentions of the 1st opposite party this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entailed to get relief as prayed for?
6. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone from the 2nd opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs. 12,500/- on 14/8/2015. The product has one year warranty. During the warranty period the product became defective the defect was intimated to the 3rd opposite party who is the authorized service center of the of the 1st opposite party. The 3rd opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.6000/- towards repairing charges. Since the phone under warranty the complainant is not willing to pay the charges as demanded by the 3rd opposite party. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
7. The complainant was examined as Pw1 and documents Exts - A1 to A3 were marked. Ext A1 is the delivery note dated 14/8/2015, Ext A2 is the warranty card and Ext A3 is work order dated 17-11-2015 issued by the 3rd opposite party. From the documents it can be seen that the complainant purchased a mobile phone from the second opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs. 12,500/- on 14/8/2015. The product has one year warranty. Three months after the date of purchase of the product it became defective and entrusted to the 3rd opposite party for rectifying the defect. According to the complainant when he approached the 3rd opposite party for getting the phone repaired he demanded an amount of Rs.6000/- towards repairing charges. According to the 1st opposite party the phone is liquid log and the complainant will not get the warranty benefits. The ExtA2 issued by the 3rd opposite party there is a specified column to enter whether the phone is liquid logged. Nothing was mentioned against that column so the contention of the opposite party that the phone is water logged and hence they denied warranty will not sustaine. The phone is with the 3rd opposite party and they did not even mind to come forward and contest the case. The Forum is of the opinion that the allegation put forward by the complainant against opposite parties is highly genuine. It is pertinent to note that the phone became defective immediately after 3 months from the date of purchase. The complainant proves his case by supporting documents. The phone became defective during the warranty period and the complainant is entitled to get it repaired under warranty. Since the opposite party failed to rectify the defect amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to get it repaired or replaced along with compensation and cost. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for that so the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to rectify the defects free of costs with a warranty of 6 months. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards costs. The order shall be compiled within 1month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile phone with a new one of the same model/price along with fresh warranty.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced
in Open Forum on this the 30th September 2016.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - C.D .Antony (witness)
Ext.A1 - Delivery Note
Ext.A2 - Warranty card
ExtA3 - Work Order Dtd. 17-11-2015
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
-//True copy//-
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
To
Complainant/Opposite party/SF
Typed by:Br/-
Compd.By: -
