Complaints filed on: 29-03-2022

                                                      Disposed on: 14-03-2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU.

          DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF MARCH 2023

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER

CC.No.76/2022

1.       Sri. Sathish K.M., Advocate,

          Off:Vilasi Comfirts,

          B.H.Road, Near SS Circle,

          Near ICICI Bank, Tumakuru.

2.       N.M.Chandrashekaraiah

          S/o Mahadevaiah, Advocate,

          A/a 45 years,

          R/o C.Nandihalli Village,

          Chelur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk,

          Tumakuru District.

……….Complainant

(By Sri.R.H.Ravi, Advocate)

V/s

1.       The Manager,

          Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

          Head Office, 20^th to 24^th Floor,

          Horizon Center, Golf Course Road,

          Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon,

          Haryana-122 202.

2.       The Manager,

          Sansung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

          Branch Office, Srikanta Maple,

          MIG 719, A-Sector, Yalahanka New Town,

          Petrol Bunk Road, Bengaluru.

3.       Service Center,     

          Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

          Ankitha Services, No.1861/B/847,

          Krishna Arcade, Tumakuru.

……….Opposite Party

(OP No.1- By Sri.Himananda D.C., Adv.,)

(OP No.2- Absent)

(OP No.3 – Absent)

:ORDER:

BY SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OPs U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 with a prayer to direct the OPs to rectify the repair in the mobile set without any cost as per warrantee issued by the OPs along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service.

2.       The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

The complainants 1 & 2 are friends and also Advocates by profession.  The 1^st complainant purchased Samsung Mobile Phone for his friend 2^nd complainant on Amazon under Tax invoice/Bill of supply/cash memo in order dated:13.11.2020 and the set was delivered on 20.11.2020 through Amazon in Model No.SMM315FZBGINU in serial No.RZ8NAIDRRNORR NO.3877695 and thereafter the same was delivered to 2^nd complainant and who is in possession.  On 06.09.2021 the said mobile failed to operate correctly and hence the complainant approached the OP No.3 on 06.09.2021 and stated about non-operating of the mobile and the OP No.3 received the said mobile and issued acknowledgment and asked the complainant to call later to know the status of the mobile.  Thereafter the complainant called the OP No.3, the OP No.3 stated that internal board is affected and it will cost Rs.10,000/-.  It is the bounden duty of the OPs to rectify the mistake free of cost as per the warranty issued by the OPs.  But the OPs did not do so.  Still the handset is with the OP No.3.  Hence, the complainants issued legal notice on 13.09.2021, but the OP did not reply to the legal notice though received.  Hence, this complaint.   

3.       On receipt of notice by this Commission, the OPs 2 & 3 remained absent.  The OP No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed the version contending that the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be rejected since the complaint is filed beyond warranty period.  It is submitted that mobile is purchased on 13.11.2020 and one year warranty expired on 12.11.2021, but the complaint is filed on 29.03.2022 i.e. after 4^th month from the date of expiry of warrant.   The warranty starts from purchase date and not from delivery date.   The OP No.1 further contended that the complainant failed to produce the warranty card and to highlight the relevant clause to establish their allegation is true and correct and the customer is not entitled for free service under all circumstances even though mobile is submitted within warranty as few services are exempted from free service as per warranty pre-conditions and those exempted service will be attended on payment.   

          The OP No.1 further contended that the complainant 1^st visit to the service center on 06.09.2021, but before 1^st visit the complainant got LCD changed from local market and the said act is violation of warranty condition and in-fact replacement of LCD arose due to breakage/damage.  It is further submitted that breakage or damage happened due to customer/users negligence and the said issue does not fall within the technical fault.  The complainant approached the 3^rd party and got local LCD replaced and this fact was suppressed by the complainant.  If any service work is done through outside, then the customer will loss warranty benefit and he cannot get free service for their subsequent service.  As per the job sheet, it is proved that the complainant approached 3^rd party before approaching the service centre.  It is further submitted that complainant failed to understand for out-warranty support payment is mandatory as per service job sheet pre-conditions coupled with warranty pre-conditions.  The estimate letter contains PBA and LCD cost separately and this information is well within the knowledge and information of complainant.  It is further submitted that if the complainant wishes to use local LCD only as per their wish under such circumstances, to solve the service issue dated:06.09.2021, replacement of PBA is enough and part cost is Rs.5,706/- + taxes and not Rs.10,000/- as per allegation.   The OP No.1 further contended that in the job sheet dated:06.09.2021 produced by the complainant it is clearly stated “OUSIDE REPAIR”, that apart @ warranty status column it is marked “OUT WARRANTY”.  Hence, the complainant himself admitted that he has given mobile to 3^rd party for repair and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the warranty.  The complainant has to pay cost for repair due to out-warranty.  There is no any deficiency of service.  On these among other grounds, the OP No.1 prays to dismiss the complaint.   

4.       The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence.  The complainant produced some copies of documents.  Mr.Sandeep Sahijwani, Director of Customer Satisfaction (QA-Lab) of OP No.1 files his affidavit evidence on behalf of OP No.1 and also produced list with copies of documents.

5.       We have heard the arguments of counsel for OP No.1.  The OP No.1 also files their written arguments.  In spite of sufficient opportunities, the complainants did not address their arguments.  Hence, argument of complainants is taken as NIL. 

6.       On perusal of pleadings and documents produced by the complainant and OP No.1, the points that would arise for our consideration are:

1)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs?

2)                     Whether complainant is entitled for reliefs sought for?

7.       Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: In the Negative.

Point No.2: As per the final order

:REASONS:

Point Nos.(1) & (2):

8.       On perusal of pleadings and documents of the parties, it is seen that the complainants purchased Samsung Mobile Phone on Amazon under Tax invoice/Bill of supply/cash memo dated:13.11.2020.  The mobile phone was delivered on 20.11.2020 through Amazon.  On 06.09.2021, the said Mobile failed to operate correctly.  Hence, the complainant approached the OP No.3 on 06.09.2021 and OP No.3 received the said mobile and issued acknowledgment.  Therefore, the complainant called the OP No.3 and the OP No.3 stated that internal board is affected and it will cost of Rs.10,000/- 

9.       Now the main allegation of the complainant is that it is the bounden duty of the OPs to rectify the mistake free of cost as per the warranty issued by the OPs.  But the OPs did not do so and handset is with OP No.3.

10.     The OP Nos.2 & OP No.3 have not appeared before this Commission.  The OP No.1 appeared and contended that the complainant failed to produce the warranty card and to highlight the relevant clause to establish their allegation is true and correct and the customer is not entitled for free service under all circumstances even though mobile is submitted within warranty as few services are exempted from free service as per warranty pre-conditions and those exempted service will be attended on payment.   The OP No.1 further contended that the complainant 1^st visit to the service center on 06.09.2021, but before 1^st visit the complainant got LCD changed from local market and the said act is violation of warranty condition and in-fact replacement of LCD arose due to breakage/damage.  It is further contended by the OP No.1 that if any service work is done through outside, then the customer will loss warranty benefit and he cannot get free service for their subsequent service.  As per the job sheet, it is proved that the complainant approached the 3^rd party before approaching the service centre.   The OP No.1 further contended in the job sheet dated:06.09.2021 produced by the complainant it is clearly stated “OUSIDE REPAIR”, that apart @ warranty status column it is marked “OUT WARRANTY”. 

11.     From the above admitted facts and contentions, it is clear that if any service work is done through outside, then the customer will loss warranty benefit and complainant cannot get free service.

12.     As per the job sheet, it is proved that the complainant approached the 3^rd party before approaching the service centre.  Moreover, the complainant has not appeared before this Commission after the admission of the complaint to challenge the job-card and not produced any evidence to defend their case.  In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 and other OPs.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:- 

:ORDER:

The complaint filed by the complainants is dismissed.  No costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both parties

(