DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^thday of August2018

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

              : Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                                Date of filing:  30/01/2018

              : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

                                                            CC/14/2018

Nidheesh.K,

S/o Venugopalan,

Kallikattil Veedu,

Karakkad, Kavalappara (PO),

Shornur, 679 523.                                                                   -  Complainant

(By party in person only)

                                                             Vs

Samsung Mobile Service,

Network mobiles,

City Plaza Building,

Opposite Post Office, Ottapalam.

679 101.

Samsung Mobile Service,

Calicut Main Branch,

East Nadakavu,

Cross Road,

Kozhikode, Kerala,

673 006.- Opposite parties

(Advs.K.R.Santhoskumar & Manimangalath Sammeer Babu)

Fone 4 Communication (India) Pvt, Ltd., Door No : 9/82,

Ground Floor, White Mound Building, Shornur Road, Ottapalam,

679 101.

                                                                          O R D E R

By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member

Complainant had purchased a Samsung Mobile on 14.10.2017 from opposite party 3 for an amount of Rs.24,900/-.  Model Number C7 pro, serial number : 357169081096671  the complainant states that on the next day of the purchase the back key panel, finger print etc. did not functioned and he took the phone to the 3^rd opposite party and complained about it.  They directed him to approach the service centre and a complaint was registered as 4247501725.  The service centre informed that the software had to be done and asked him to wait for two hours.  But even after that the same complaint was found and he took the same to the service centre and requested them to replace the said handset.  They informed him that the handset can be replaced only if there is a hardware complaint.   After thorough inspection from the service centre they detected complaints in the hardware and informed the complainant that the handset can be replaced only upon the permission from the head office.  After the duration of hours directed to get it replaced from the shop from where it was purchased.  Accordingly he approached the shop, but mobile purchase bill, accessories and the box was retained by the service centre itself.  A replaced handset was handed over to the complainant from the 3^rd opposite party’s shop.  Few days after the said handset also shows complaints in the camera network and internet connection.  He reported the same to the service centre and they directed him to change the sim.  Accordingly he changed the sim card but the complaint continued.  He handed over the handset to the service centre stating the complaint and another complaint was registered in his name.  The process continued on several occasions stating one or other complaints and atlast the service centre began to show indifferent attitude towards the complainant.  The complainant further submits that he had lost many of his working days due to the above complaints.  He had to visit the service centre very often and could not attend to his office work promptly.  At last he has to purchase another android phone to continue his office work, since he was conducting an online office work.  The opposite parties had not repaired the above phone after due repairs till now nor they had not replaced the same.  Hence he had approached before this Forum for the redressal of his grievance.  He had also submitted that he had obtained a financial loan from bajaj finance for the purchase of the said phone and had to pay the EMI regularly.  He had seeked an order directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of the above phone alongwith compensation and cost. 

            Notice was issued to opposite parties for appearance.  Opposite party 2 entered appearance and filed their version.  Opposite parties 1 & 3 were absent inspite of accepting notice from the Forum.  Hence they were called absent and set ex-parte.  Opposite party 1 filed another application to set aside the ex-parte order. 

Application was allowed and they filed their respective versions. 

            The 1^st opposite party stated that they are only an institution who had undertaken the Annual Maintenance Contract of the Samsung India Electronics Pvt, Ltd,.  The complainant had approached the 1^st opposite party with regard to the complaint of his mobile handset.  When entrusted to the manufacturer they had informed that the said handset does not suffer from any complaint.  They do not have any authority either to exchange or refund the cost of mobile.  Such powers are vested only with the manufacturing company of Samsung India Limited.  Hence they are not in a position to settle the claim of the complainant.  They had informed the same to the complainant also.  Hence they had to be exonerated from the liability. 

            2^nd opposite party filed versions stating that the complainant had alleged manufacturing defect in the product and the alleged defect cannot be determine on the simpliciter submission of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same.  The complainant had miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault, or placed on record any analysis test report to prove the same.  The complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions thereby enabling the complainant to enrich him at the cost of the opposite party by filing frivolous claim.  It was admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile handset worth Rs.24,900/- on 14.10.2017 which was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  Thereafter on the next day, the complainant noticed certain complaints of back key light sometime outworking and approached the service centre through dealer and a complaint was duly registered vide job card.  The handset was duly inspected by service centre and found the issue and he was issued a memo to purchase fresh handset from the dealer against his old handset.  Accordingly the fresh handset was given, but the same also faced some complainants and the complainant approached the service centre and after being checked found the complaint as alleged and the handset was put to service and thereby the entire complaint was rectified by good service and the phone was handed over to the complainant with full satisfaction.  But thereafter also the complainant was not satisfied with the service done to the handset and he demanded for refund of purchase price with compensation for which the dispute arose and hence had filed this complaint.  In this case when the 1^st complaint was reported the 2^nd opposite party has replaced his old handset with new one without delay and the 2^nd handset also faced some complaints that were clearly cured as per the warranty terms but the customer was not satisfied with the service and makes unnecessary and illegal demand for refund and compensation.  Even now the 2^nd opposite party is ready to provide better service if any if the handset is defective as per the warranty term.  The complainant had approached the Forum without following any such procedure raising false allegations and contentions for which 2^nd opposite party is not at all responsible.  As per the terms of the warranty, only issues arising during the warranty period will be repaired free of cost and all repairs which comes within the warranty period will be repaired free of cost.  In this case the service centre was ready to render better service within the scope of warranty and now even they are ready to provide service on cost but the complainant is not ready for that.  The 2^nd opposite party has not committed any act of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice, what so ever as alleged.  The complainant is not entitled to any compensation or any other relief whatsoever in view of the facts and hence it has to be dismissed. 

            Complainant filed chief affidavit.  Exts.A1 to A4 was marked from the side of the complainant.  Opposite party had not filed any proof affidavit or submitted any evidence.  Evidence was closed and the matter was heard. 

The following issues that arise for consideration are.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what are the relief and cost?

Issues 1 & 2

            We have perused the complaint as well as affidavits and documents produced by the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party had admitted in their version that the complainant had approached the 1^st opposite party and a complaint was duly registered.  They had also admitted that a fresh handset was given to the complainant but the same also faced complaints and the complainant had approached the service centre and the handset was put to service.  In view of the above submissions it can be inferred that the complainant’s handset suffered from some kind of manufacturing defects.  The complainant had also stated in his affidavit that he had lost faith with the opposite party and he needs only refund of the purchase price. 

In the light of the above submission the complaint is allowed.  The complainant has also produced evidence as Ext.A3 to show that he had obtained loan for the purchase of the above handset and he is regularly remitting the EMI’s.  Since the complaint of the handset persists there is no meaning in granting a new handset to the complainant.  Hence we direct the opposite party to refund the purchase price of the handset which is evident from Ext.A1 which amounts to Rs.24,900/- (Rupees twenty four thousand nine hundred only).  It can also be inferred that he had suffered mental strain due to the non-working of the above handset.  Hence we direct the 2^nd opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony suffered by him and also to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards the cost of this litigation expenses. 

The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order; failing which the complainant is entitled to realize 9% interest p.a from the opposite party on the total amount due to him from the date of this order till realization.            

            Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^thday of August2018.

                                                                                                                            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 Retail Invoice dated.17.10.2017 issued by FONE4

                Communications (India) Pvt, Ltd.to the complainant

Ext.A2  -  Photocopy of Acknowledgement of service request issued by 1^st opposite

                Party to the complainant

Ext.A3  -  Photocopy of EMI loan details

Ext.A4  -  Amzazon Customer Reviews

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost

            Rs.2,000/-