D.O.F:13/09/2022
D.O.O:10/07/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.229/2022
Dated this, the 10th day of July 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G : MEMBER
Sanjay Raj, 29 years,
S/o K.P Jayarajan,
RAMAS House, Kanathur,
Muliyar (Via), Kasaragod, 671542. : Complainant
And
1. The Manager,
SmartX,
Samsung Authorized Service Centre,
6/878, Kasaragod New Bus stand,
Kasaragod 671121.
: Opposite Parties
2. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited,
Represented by Authorized Officer,
6th Floor, DLF Centre,
Sansad Marg.
New Delhi – 110001.
(Adv: C.V. Narayanan)
ORDER
SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
The case of the complainant is that he is a student of Government Law College Eranakulam . On 10th September 2022 he went to Smartex Samsung service centre as his mobile phone was not working properly. He was told that the display of the phone is defective and to charge the display of the phone to make the phone function. He asked for a Samsung display for his model to which they replied that they won’t sell the display and as per Samsung company rule, it can only be repaired at their service centre. They took the phone inside and after some time returned back and asked to check the phone and charged Rs. 6500/-. They took a service charge and that is unreasonable if they don’t give the option to service it at any other place. He asked for the box of the new display they had installed on the phone to check the manufacturing month and MRP of the product. They refused to give the box saying that as per company policy they cannot give the box and it has to be returned back as per e. waste management. Moreover, all electronic items have to be sold by informing the product details, manufacturing date and the MRP of the product. It was totally denied after the repair phone started showing other problems with its audio, whenever a call comes, the voice gets distorted and random noise comes through speaker. The device has been tempered unprofessionally.
After reaching Kochi, he contacted the Samsung company through customers care, he come to know that he could purchase the display and get it fitted from anywhere else and there was no mandatory requirement to be serviced at this service center.
The complainant claims relief for spreading lies, insulting causing mental agony and harassment Rs. 1,00,000/- spreading lies and hiding product information Rs. 1 lakh breach of trust in the name of good will of the company Rs. 1,00,000/- refused to abide laws and follow customer right Rs.1,00,000/- tampering the device and causing more danger Rs. 50,000/- cost of the litigation and travel expenses and time loss of Rs. 50,000/- total Rs. 5 lakh.
The Opposite party No:2 filed version, stating that complaint is false and malicious and has been filed with malafide interest with regard to the manufacturer.
The phone has no manufacturing defect the complainant alleges manufacturing defect after almost three year of the purchase of a mobile headset.
The manufacturer of the product, the opposite Party has not meted out any kind of negligence, unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. It is submitted that the complainant has not suffered any kind of pain or mental agony. The complainant is not entitled to any kind of compensation whatsoever. There is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of opposite Party No:2 and hence complaint is not maintainable against the Opposite party No:2 and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The complainant filed documents and marked as Ext A1 to A4. Ext A1 is acknowledgment, Ext A2 is bill, Ext A3 is repairs report, and Ext A4 is display details. The Opposite party not adduced any evidence.
Following points arised for consideration in the case:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from Opposite Party?
- Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?
All points considered together.
The complainant has not alleged any specific manufacturing defect to the product. No steps taken to prove manufacturing defect if any. Hence it is found complainant failed to prove any manufacturing defect to the device. Therefore opposite party No:2 the manufacturer is exonerated from liability.
The complainant did not state when he purchased the hand set. Opposite Party No:1 did not file its version. Grievance of the complainant is that there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite Party No:1 in service and collecting service charge.
Relief claimed in the complaint is Rs. 5,00,000/- on various heads. But complainant failed to prove such a huge loss there is no justifiable reasons to claim such a loss. The complainant may cause mental agony for which the commission finds that an amount of Rs. 3000/- is reasonable compensation and also entitled for cost of Rs.3000/-.
In the result complaint is partly allowed directing Opposite party No:1 to pay sum of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) for compensation for deficiency in service and Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the litigation to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Acknowledgment
A2- Tax invoice
A3- Repairs report
A4- Display details
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
