By. Smt. Beena. M, Member:-
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Brief facts of the case are given below:-
On 25-03-2018, the Complainant went to the Opposite Party’s mobile phone service centre for repairing his Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge mobile phone worth Rs.56,900/- due to broken front display. The service staff present at that time said that only the display, back glass and side packing could be repaired, because of the display broken completely as it would cost a total of Rs.19,000/-. He said that after 15 days the phone would be repaired. Rs.10,000/- was paid by the Complainant as an advance payment. Thereafter, on 09/04/2018, when the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party directly, they said that they would call after 2 days as the mobile parts did not arrive. But on the third day (12/04/2018) the Complainant got a call from the company and was told that they would repair it within a week. On 16/04/2018, the Complainant got a call from the Opposite Party and asked to reach the shop and hand over the phone and the phone was returned by 3 PM. From there, the Complainant checked the phone and understood that the service was not proper as the phone was in a heating condition. Then the Complainant handed over the phone back to them. Then they checked it and called the technician who repaired the phone and he had told that there is no problem with the phone. On the insistence of the Complainant, the Opposite Party agreed to clear the phone again and they returned the phone after an hour. But the phone wasn’t working. The phone got unbearably hot. When the Complainant informed about this to the service staff, he told that the Complainant’s phone had no complaint and added that if any complaint arise later to bring it again to the shop. The Complainant paid balance of Rs.8,353/-and obtained bill from the Opposite Party. Fifteen days later, the Complainant noticed that the mobile phone seems to have a heating problem, charge shortage problem and the mobile broken into two pieces and noticed that there is a crack on the display of the said mobile. Then the Complainant went directly to the Opposite Party. They agreed to repair it within 20 days. After 20 days, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party through phone but they were saying one or more excuses. Due to the repeated calls from the Complainant, the Opposite party asked to bring the phone. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party with the defective mobile phone and asked them to clear all the defects of the mobile. At that time, the Opposite Party said that they would replace the battery only. Hence this Complaint.
3. After the admission of the Complaint, Commission issued summons to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party entered appearance and filed version stating the following contentions.
4. The Opposite Party admitted the fact that the Complainant approached to replace the broken display of the mobile phone. The Opposite Party informed that the display and back cover could only to be changed together and would come around Rs.19,000/-. The Opposite Party also informed that there would be delay of 10 days. Agreeing with this, the Complainant paid an advance of Rs.10,000/-. When the spare parts reached, on 06/04/2018, the Complainant came as per the information given by the Opposite Party and the spare parts were replaced and the Complainant paid balance amount after satisfaction.
5. The Opposite Party submitted that when the Complainant approached to inform the defect of the mobile, the Opposite Party inspected the phone and intimated that the phone could not repair under warranty. The Opposite Party informed that there is no chance for replacement of the defective part if the defect occurred due to physical damage. According to the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed a false case with concocted allegations like service deficiency etc. Whatever damages happened to the mobile due to the negligent handling of the Complainant himself, the Opposite Party is not liable for that. Therefore, the Opposite Party prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint.
6. On perusal of the Complaint, Version and documents, Commission raised the following points for Consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of Opposite Party?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relieves as prayed for?
7. Point No. 1 and 2 :- For the sake of convenience and brevity all the points are considered together.
8. The Complainant had adduced oral evidence. He was examined as PW1 and document produced was marked as Ext.A1. The owner of the service centre was examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 to B3 marked.
9. The main contention of the Complainant is that Complainant’s mobile phone which was given for replacement of display to the Opposite Party was broken. According to the Complainant, his mobile got damaged because of the negligence and deficiency of the Opposite Party.
10. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party had contended that the Complainant handed over his mobile for service of display broken and he was informed that only after the due inspection of the mobile phone, it is possible to provide the estimate for repairing. The said mobile phone was not covered by warranty and it was accepted by the Complainant. If any damage was caused to the phone by the Opposite Party, the Complainant would not sign the tax invoice and customer feedback form. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. It is also not disputed that the mobile was not under the warranty coverage.
11. The dispute is that the Complainant had entrusted his mobile to the Opposite Party only to replace the broken display on 25/03/2018, but the same was returned in damaged condition.
12. On perusal of Ext.B2 acknowledgement of Service Request, in defect description column, it has been stated that display and back glass broken. On page No.2 of Ext.B2, in the repair description column, it has been stated that LCD Crack customer demands for replacement in IW. This proves that the display was broken at the time of handling over the mobile to the Opposite Party. Further, in the said document, in goods delivered column, the date has been stated as 16/04/2018.
13. There is no dispute that the Complainant has entrusted his mobile phone to the Opposite Party on 25/03/2018 for replacement of broken display. Here, the Complainant at the time of examination deposed that “sass_ensâ ¥mkv s]m«m³ ImcWw hnbpsS books, coins sâbpw CSbn \n¶pw phone FSp¯XmWv”. The negligent act of the Complainant caused damage to the phone. Moreover, the Complainant failed to produce the defective mobile before this Commission for inspecting it as to what is the real damage occurred to the mobile and just to know about its cause, means how it occurred etc. In the absence any evidence, the allegation of the Complainant cannot be believed.
14. From the above discussion, we come to the conclusion that the Complainant has failed to prove his case. As such, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Complaint is dismissed without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 15th day of September 2023.
Date of Filing:-21.07.2018.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Libin John.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Sajith. V. Business.
Exhibits for the Complainant:-
A1. Tax Invoice. Dt:16.04.2018.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
B1. Copy of Tax Invoice. Dt:16.04.2018.
B2. Acknowledgment of Service Request. Dt:06.04.2018.
B3. Acknowledgment of Service Request. Dt:04.07.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
