DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 19^th  day of May 2018

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

              : Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                                 Date of filing:  09/10/2017

              : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

(C.C.No.145/2017)

Giri Kumar.R,

10/798,

Ragam House,

Alampallam Road,

Chandra Nagar (PO) 678 007,

Palakkad.                                                                                          -           Complainant

(By party in person)

 V/s

1.  The Manager                                                                               -           Opposite parties

     Samsung Service Centre – 0005380157,

     Blue Point, 12/657 (6), 1^st Floor,

     MS – Business Centre,

     HPO Road, Palakkad – 678 001.

2.  The Manager/General Manager,

     Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd,

     A-25, Ground Floor,

     Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

     New Delhi – 110 044.

 (By Adv.K.R.Santhoshkumar)

                                                                        O R D E R

By Sri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

            The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung Galaxy A5, 2016 model – (Model SM – AS10FZDFINS) – on 27.01.2017 for Rs.22,000/- and the warranty available for the phone is one year from the date of its purchase.  The complainant observed that the phone was getting overheated and getting gradually bent near the volume button which is quite visible and according to the complainant the other side can be seen when the mobile was placed on a table surface and the condition of the phone may get further deteriorated due to the internal component defects which could cause major health damages to the complainant and his family members.  Complainant pleads that he is really afraid to use the disputed mobile phone.  The complainant contacted the authorised service centre in Palakkad and told the service centre technician that the damage is caused by defect of internal components and there are no physical scratches or dent damages and the phone gets automatically bent due to the faulty components and poor quality.  According to the complainant, the service centre argued that the damage is caused by user and refused to provide the promised warranty service within one year warranty period and they initially gave an oral quote of Rs.12,700/- and then gave a written quote of Rs.10,808/- and returned the phone without servicing, because complainant did not pay the huge service charge which shows deficiency of service from the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  Complainant also pleads that there were many user complaints showing similar damages to Samsung, Sony handsets and the customers were given company warranty requirements identifying the damages as manufacturing component defects.  This phone damage and attitude of the Samsung Company has caused a lot of mental agony and the difficulties to the complainant and his family.  Hence complainant prays to the Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite party to replace the faulty handset with a new similar or better phone or refund the purchase bill amount of Rs.22,000/- and to give the complainant a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of huge mental agony caused to him and his family and difficulties suffered by him due to non availability of phone, travel expenses, court expenses etc. 

The complaint was admitted and notices were sent to opposite parties to enter appearance and file version.  In the versions filed jointly by 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties, it is contend that complaint is baseless and devoid of merits; this Hon’ble Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction for entertaining and adjudicating the present complaint.  According to the opposite parties, the complaint filed was ill motivated and the complainant has failed to prove the alleged manufacturing defect/technical fault nor placed any analysis test report for the perusal of this Hon’ble Forum.  Opposite parties also contend that the complainant has sought compensation without demonstrating whether any loss has occurred and in what manner compensation was computed and claimed.  Further, the opposite parties also contend that the complainant is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties because complainant has not impleaded the dealer from whom he purchased the disputed handset and it is only the dealer who can authenticate the purchase of the disputed defective handset by the complainant.  According to the opposite parties, in the absence of the said dealer the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Opposite parties also contend that on 30.09.2017 after using the mobile phone in question for about nine months, the complainant contacted the service centre with a complaint of overheating and bent on the side of volume key and after registering the complaint the product was thoroughly checked by the engineers of service centre and found that the rear case was bent due to physical damage by the complainant.  Hence warranty of the said product became void and repairs were to be on chargeable basis only and the service centre cannot repair the said product free of cost.  Also according to the opposite parties, the display was bent only due to careless usage by the complainant.  Hence, the service centre denied free service and gave an estimate for repair.  According to the opposite party, as per the terms of warranty policy only those issues are repairable on free of cost basis that arise on account of manufacturing defects or faulty workmanship and since there are no manufacturing defects on the handset, the opposite parties have not committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice alleged in the complaint.  Hence opposite parties pray to the Hon’ble Forum to dismiss the complaint. 

No vakkalath was filed initially for 1^st opposite party, hence his name was called absent and therefore he was set ex-parte.  Initially no version was recorded.  Complainant filed chief affidavit and Exts.A1 to A6 were also marked from the side of the complainant.  The mobile and its accessories were marked as Ext.MO 1 series. Later on, when the case was posted for orders on 03.01.2018 and for pronouncing the order on 20.01.2018, the opposite parties filed application for reopening the case.  Accordingly, the case was reopened and the opposite parties jointly filed their version and their affidavit.  From their side Exts.B1 & B2 were marked.  Complainant was also heard. 

              The following issues are considered in this case :-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties ?
2. If so, the relief and cost available to the complainant?

Issues 1 & 2

Complainant has purchased a Samsung Galaxy A52016 model mobile phone on 27.01.2017 for Rs.22,000/- (Rupees twenty two thousand only).  The cash bill cum invoice evidencing the purchase of the above mobile phone is marked as Ext.A1 which indicates total amount paid for the mobile phone, model of the mobile phone, name of the mobile shop, invoice number, date of purchase etc.  The warranty available for the phone is one year from the date of purchase, the warranty card is marked as Ext.A2 which shows warranty conditions, special terms and conditions, important customer information, out of warranty and warranty void conditions etc.  On observing that the phone was getting over heated and getting gradually bent near the volume button, complainant approached the authorised service centre in Palakkad for warranty service of the phone.  Copy of Samsung acknowledgement of service request is marked as Ext.A3 which shows customer name and address, appointment date, mobile’s model name, defect description, purchase date etc.  According to the service centre, the damage to the mobile phone was caused by user and hence they refused to provide the company promised warranty service within one year warranty period free of cost.  The service centre people gave the complainant an oral quotation of Rs.12,700/- and again gave the written quotation of Rs.10,808/- for servicing the mobile phone in question and returned to the complainant the concerned phone without service because the complainant did not pay the huge service charge demanded by the service centre.  Estimation for repairing the disputed Samsung mobile purchased by the complainant is marked as Ext.A4 which mentions customer’s name, model of the mobile phone, its serial number/IMEI number, part number and their description, net amount and remarks.  According to the complainant, he is unable to use the phone due to the damages and fear of further damages and possible explosion of the phone.  Photographs of the damages of the mobile phone, top view and side views are marked as Ext.A5.  On checking websites complainant has observed many user complaints showing similar damages to Samsung and other phone makes such as Sony and they have been given company warranty replacements identifying their defects as manufacturing component defects.  Details available on internet regarding similar damages to mobile phones are marked as Ext.A6.  In the version filed on behalf of 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties, DGM, customer satisfaction who is given the power of attorney whose copy is marked as Ext.B1, contends that complaint is baseless, devoid of merits and without any cause of action and hence it is liable to be dismissed.  This Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction because, the 2^nd opposite party has its registered office at New Delhi.  According to the opposite parties, complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product which needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same and the complainant has not placed any analysis test report before this Forum to prove the alleged manufacturing defect and technical fault; the complainant has also not demonstrated whether any loss has happened and the method of computation of compensation claimed.  Opposite parties also contend that the present complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties because the complainant has not impleaded the dealer from whom the complainant purchased the disputed handset.  Again, the complainant allegedly purchased the handset in question on 27.01.2017 and after using this handset for about nine months, on 30.09.2017 the complainant approached the service centre with complaints of overheating and bent on the volume key side.  This complaint was registered with job card and the unit was thoroughly checked by the engineers of the service centre and it was found that the real case was that it was bent due to physical damage on the part of the complainant, making the warranty for the product void and any repairs to the product were chargeable, as pleaded by the opposite parties.  Copy of warranty is marked as Ext.B2 which shows warranty period, terms of warranty, cases in which warranty is not applicable etc.  According to the opposite parties, the display was bent only due to careless usage by the complainant hence, the service centre gave an estimate for repair which was not agreed to by the complainant; opposite parties further contend that complainant demands replacement or refund and as per the terms of the warranty policy only those issues which arise due to manufacturing defects or faulty workmanship are repairable on free of cost basis and this issue reported by the complainant on account of physical damage and hence repairs in this case are to be done on chargeable basis only.  Hence opposite parties contend that complainant is not entitled to get any compensation/costs of the proceedings and any relief.

            We have physically inspected the Ext.MO1 handset in question and found that there is a bent in the handset.  Hence, we observe that opposite parties are seen to have committed an unfair trade practice by selling a defective product.  Further, we view that during the currency of warranty period of one year for the handset in question, complainant has found the problems of the disputed handset of getting overheated and bent near the volume button of the mobile phone and these problems have been duly intimated within the warranty period to the authorized service centre of the product in Palakkad, but we have observed that the concerned authorized service centre is seen to have refused to provide the promised warranty service free of cost to the complainant; instead the service centre is seen to have given him a written quote of a huge service charge of Rs.10,808/- (Rupees ten thousand eight hundred and eight only) for servicing the disputed defective product of the complainant which comes to nearly half of its purchase price and returned to the complainant the handset in question without servicing the same free of cost.  Above all, we also view that opposite parties are not seen to have produced concrete expert evidence before this Forum to substantiate their claim that the bent in the disputed handset was caused by its misuse by the complainant.  Considering all the above, we find that commission of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties is established beyond doubt. 

            The result is that complaint is allowed. 

            We direct the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties to be jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant the invoice price of the disputed handset of Rs.22,000/- (Rupees twenty two thousand only); the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties are also jointly and severally ordered to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) by way of cost of proceedings incurred by him.  We also order the opposite parties to take back the handset in question and its accessories from this Forum, once the order is completely executed. 

This order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order; otherwise complainant is also entitled to interest at 9% p.a on the total amount due to him from the date of this order till realization. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 19^th day of May 2018.

     Sd/-

                  Shiny.P.R

                   President 

                           Sd/- 

                   Suma.K.P

                    Member

      Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                    Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1  -  Original Invoice of Chennai Mobiles – Invoice No.593 dated.27.01.2017

Ext.A2  -  Original Warranty card of Samsung Mobile

Ext.A3  -  Photo copy of Acknowledgement of service request issued by Samsung

                 Service Centre,  Palakkad

Ext.A4  -  Original estimation for repairing the Samsung product of the complainant

     issued by service engineer, Blue Point, M-5 Business Centre, H.P.O Road,

     Near, H.P.O, Palakkad – 678 001. 

Ext.A5  -  Photograph of the damaged phone, top and side views.

Ext.A6  -  Photo copy of details available on internet regarding similar damages to

                 mobile phones

MO1 series      -  Disputed Samsung Mobile Phone and its Accessories

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Ext.B1            -  True copy of Special Power of Attorney of Government of National Capital

               Territory of Delhi

Ext.B2            -  Photocopy of warranty information

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost

            Rs.3,000/-