Orissa

Cuttak

CC/54/2016

Smt Deepa Bathwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Chhanel-4 - Opp.Party(s)

L N Das

07 Sep 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.54/2016

 

Smt. Depa Bathwal,

Jagati House,At:Balu Bazar,

Near Ahinsha Bhawan,P.S:Lalbag,

PO:Chandinichowk,Dist:Cuttck.                                                               … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1.        The Manager, Channel-4,

Authorized Service Centre,

Samsung India Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.2072/3595, At: Mahatab Road,

P.S: Mangalabag, Cuttack-753012.

 

2.        M/s. R.K.Mobile,

Authorized Dealer,

Samsung India Pvt. Ltd.,

Dargha Bazar,Cuttack.

 

3.        Regional Manager Max International,

Samsung India Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.65,Rasulglarh,Bhubaneswar.

 

4.        Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

A-25,Ground Floor, Front Tower Mohan Co-operative,

Industrial State, New Delhi-110044.                                                                … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:              Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:     21.042016. 

Date of Order:   07.09.2017.

 

For the complainant                  :       Mr. L.N.Das,Adv,. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party 1& 2.          :                None.

For the O.P No.3 & 4                 :       Mr. K.C.Mohapatgra,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

                The case is against deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.

1. Shortly, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy Core-2(355) mobile phone from O.P No.2 by paying a sum of Rs.8000/- on 10.11.2014 bearing No.EMEI-1-354797068274185 and No.EMEI-2-354798068274183(Annexure-1).  The said mobile developed some problem like unable to get charged for which O.P. No.2 was informed on 07.09.2015 and  O.P No.2advised the complainant to take the help of O.P No.1, their authorized service centre.  The complainant produced the said mobile phone before O.P No.1, the Service engineer opened the said phone and intimated the complainant that a sum of Rs.10,000/- will be required to repair the said mobile phone.  Since the price of the mobile phone was Rs.8000/- only and the repair cost was Rs.10,000/- the complainant did not agree to repair the same.  O.P No.1 returned the set with an acknowledgement receipt bearing bill No.4200943897 (Annexure-2).  The complainant came back to her house and put the phone for charging and observed that the phone is having IMEI No. i.e. 354799064586869/1 and 354800064586865/01 in it instead of original IMEI No. as mentioned in the bill at the time of purchase.  The complainant immediately met O.P No.1 and intimated the facts.  After 2 days O.P No.1 called the complainant and intimated him to repair the said phone at 50% of service charges and the complainant will get the original IMEI No. in case such phone is given to O.P No.1 for repair.  The complainant did not want to spend a huge amount for repair of the said phone since it was within the warranty period of one year and asked O.P No.1 to repair the said phone as per provisions of warranty to which the O.P No.1 did not agree.  The complainant issued a legal notice on O.Ps to repair the said phone or to provide with a new phone (Annexure-3 & 4) but in vain.  Finding no other way, the complainant has taken shelter of this Hon’ble Forum.  He has prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay  sum of Rs.53,000/- in total of which Rs.10,000/- is towards mental agony, Rs.30,000/- is towards loss of income, Rs.8000/- towards cost of mobile phone and Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. O.P No.1 & 2 neither attended the hearing nor submitted any written version.  They were set exparte on 17.08.2017.
3. O.P.3 & 4 vide their written version dt.21.10.2016 has intimated that the complainant had purchased a Samsung Galaxy Core-2 mobile phone on 10.11.2014 with one year warranty till 09.11.2015.  The complainant produced the said mobile set before O.P No.1 on 10.9.2014 for removal of “set dead”.  On verification it was observed that the set was dead due to the fact that water was immersed in to the hand set for which the mother board(PBA) and OCTA(Led touch screen) were required to be replaced for repair of the said phone but the complainant insisted to repair the said set free of cost.  O.P No.1 had given an estimate of Rs.8432/- (and not Rs.10,000/- as intimated by the complainant ) for repair of the said phone towards cost of spares since such problems are not covered under warranty conditions.  Thereafter O.P No.1 decided to give 50% discount as a gesture to satisfy the customer on repair cost to which the complainant did not agree.  The phone was not having any manufacturing defect rather the mobile was damaged due to liquid logged.
4. Vide affidavit dt.21.2.2017 Mr. Chandrakanta Behera working as service engineer at Channel-4, Cuttack(O.P.No.1) has declared that on 09.09.20145 Mr. Deepa Bathwal had lodged  complaint regarding her mobile vide Job No.4200943897 for the problem of “set dead”.  The job sheet was made on line basing on the information as submitted by Mrs. Bathwal.  The set was inspected on the next date i.e. 10.09.2015 and it was observed that the set was dead due to liquid logged.  It was also observed that the PBA & OCTA of the said phone were damaged.  Hence PBA & OCTA were to be replaced for repair of the said phone & for such reason free warranty services were not provided.  The complainant was asked to pay the charges of repair as per terms and conditions of warranty to which the complainant did not agree.
5. We have gone through the case in details and perused minutely the documents as filed by the complainant and as well as by the O.Ps.  We have heard the advocates at length from both the sides and observed that Mrs. Deepa Bathwal had purchased a Samsung Galaxy Core-2 mobile phone from O.P No.2 on 10.11.2014 for a price of Rs.8000/-.  The set developed some problems for which it was given to O.P No.1 for repair.  From the acknowledgement of service request as submitted by the complainant it is learnt that on 09.09.2015 the complaint was lodged relating to the above telephone and the defects wee stated as ‘set dead’.  In the remark column it is indicated that PBA & OCTA liquid logged.  Under the head repair description it is also stated that PBA & OCTA cost.  From the inside picture photocopy of the mobile as submitted by the O.P No.3 & 4 it is leant that the liquid logged inside the phone. The affidavit dt.01.02.2017 made by Sri Chandrakanta Behera also reveals that the damage was caused to the mobile set due to liquid logged to which the complainant has not objected. During the hearing the complainant has failed to prove that a defective mobile was sold to him.  The complainant also failed to prove that the IMEI Nos. were changed by O.P No.1.  Rather it was learnt that the telephone was dead due to the fact that the liquid logged inside the phone.  For which free repair was not possible as per warranty conditions.  Thus the complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

ORDER

                                Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above, the case is dismissed.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 7^th day of September,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

                                                                                                                                       (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                                             Member.

                                                                                                                                     (   Sri D.C.Barik  )

                                                                                                                                          President.

                                                                                                                                      (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                                                                 Member(W).