IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 143/2012 (Filed on 04.09.2012)
Between:
Nikhil John,
Chirayathu A.N. Cottage,
Anthiyalankavu P.O.,
Anthiyalankavu Muri,
Naranganam Village,
Kozhencherry Taluk. … Complainant.
(By Adv. R. Gopikrishnan)
And:
1. The Mobile Store,
XXI/1268,
Kuzhiyil Building,
Pathanamthitta P.O.,
Pin – 689 645,
represented by its Proprietor.
2. SMG Electronics,
Kulathoor Building,
Memevettipuram,
Pathanamthitta P.O.,
Pin – 689 645,
represented by its Manager.
3. Jumbo Electronics,
SCS Junction,
Marthoma Building,
Thiruvalla, Pin – 689 101,
represented by its Manager.
4. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
7th & 8th Floor, IFCI Tower 61,
Nehru Palace, New Delhi,
represented by its CEO.
(By Adv. P. Fazil for O.P. No.4) … Opposite parties.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy SII, 1.9100, G. mobile phone from the first opposite party on 15.03.2012 by paying Rs.30,499/-. The 4th opposite party is the manufacturer and the second and third opposite parties are the authorized service centres. The complainant also paid an additional amount of Rs. 300 as the insurance premium as directed by the first opposite party under the special contingency policy subject to the terms and conditions. The said mobile phone became defective on 17.03.2012, the second day of its purchase. The matter was intimated to the first opposite party and as per their advice; it was handed over to the second opposite party for repair. After few days, second opposite party returned the mobile set under the pretext that all defects were rectified properly. But the defects of the mobile phone was not cured. Thereafter, the complainant entrusted the set to the second opposite party several time for repairing. But he was incapable to find out the defects.
3. Thereafter, as per the advice of the first opposite party, the complainant handed over the same to the third opposite party. Though the third opposite party had done some repairing works, the phone is not in working condition till now. In the circumstances, the complainant requested the first opposite party for the replacement of the mobile. But he had not taken any positive steps to redress the grievances of the complainant so far. The complaints of the phone was occurred during the warranty period. The defect of the set is manufacturing defect. Therefore, the above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite parties 1 and 4 to replace the defective mobile phone with a new phone of the same category or in the alternative direct them to return its price of Rs. 30,499 along with insurance charge of Rs. 300 with 18% interest per annum along with compensation of Rs. 15,000 and cost of this proceedings.
4. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are exparte.
5. 4th opposite party entered appearance and filed their version with the following main contentions: 4th opposite party admitted the sale of the mobile phone manufactured by them through the first opposite party. 4th opposite party has no role in offering insurance coverage to the product as it is exclusively within the control of the first opposite party. 4th opposite party never instructed the complainant to hand over the phone to the second opposite party for repairs. The complainant’s allegation that the second opposite party returned the phone without making any repairs is false as the printed board assembly and touch panel were replaced multiple times and software checked by the first, second and third opposite parties. The opposite parties had returned the mobile phone in perfect working condition after all necessary services. Since the mobile phone was returned with perfect working condition, the first opposite party is not responsible for any further errors and if there are further complaints, it can be only because of the negligent and rash manner in which complainant uses the said device. The allegation that the opposite parties have taken no steps to redress the grievances of the complainant is incorrect. The warranty offered by the 4th opposite party is only a service warranty which was duly undertaken by the 4th opposite party and complaints were rectified in time. The 4th opposite party denied the allegation of manufacturing defect to the mobile phone. The 4th opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. With the above contentions, 4th opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts. A1 and A2 and M.O.1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
8. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that the mobile phone manufactured by the 4th opposite party purchased by him from the first opposite party became defective within the warranty period was not repaired by the second and third opposite parties though it was entrusted with them for repairs. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant produced a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 2 documents and produced the defective mobile phone before this Forum. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 and A2 and the mobile phone produced is marked as M.O.1. Ext. A1 is the tax invoice No. 25442 dated 15.03.2012 issued by the first opposite party in the name of the complainant for Rs. 30,499/- in respect of the sale of the mobile phone in question. Ext. A2 is the copy of the insurance certificate issued by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. in the name of the complainant. M.O.1 is the mobile phone in question.
10. On the other hand, the contention of the 4th opposite party is that the mobile phone in question had no manufacturing defects and the complaints of the phone reported by the complainant were properly repaired by the authorized service centres of the 4th opposite party. The complaints, if any, after the repair of the phone by the service centres may be because of the negligent and rash handling of the phone by the complainant and hence they have no responsibility and liability to the complainant. They also argued that in view of the above facts, they have not committed any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant.
11. Though they have raised such contentions, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour, but they have cross examined PW1.
12. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available materials on record and found that the parties have no dispute with regard to the sale of the mobile phone. The only dispute between the parties is with regard to the defect of the mobile phone in question. According to the complainant, his mobile phone became defective on the second day of its purchase itself. It was not rectified by the opposite parties in spite the validity of the warranty. But according to the contesting opposite party, the phone is having no manufacturing defect and reported complaints were properly rectified by their authorized services centres and the complaints, if any, thereafter, may be due to the mis-handling of the phone by the complainant and they are not liable for the same. Though the contesting opposite party raised certain contentions in their favour, they have not adduced any cogent evidence for supporting their contentions. Since in the absence of any material evidence from the part of the 4th opposite party and as the other opposite parties are exparte, we find no reason to disbelieve the allegations of the complainant regarding the defects of M.O.1. Further the contesting opposite party has not taken any steps for showing that M.O.1 mobile phone is perfectly working and is free of manufacturing defect as contended by them. Therefore, we find that M.O.1 mobile phone is having defects and it is not working at present and the defects are occurred during its warranty period. In the circumstances, opposite parties are liable and responsible to the complainant for the defects of M.O.1. From the available evidence, we cannot find anything, that opposite parties have made any efforts to redress the grievance of the complainant which is a clear deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, we find that this complaint is allowable.
13. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the first and 4th opposite parties are directed to rectify the defects of M.O.1 by collecting M.O.1 from this Forum and returned it to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) and cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) or to replace a new mobile phone of the same brand along with compensation and cost ordered herein above within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the cost of the mobile phone along with compensation and cost ordered herein above with 10% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
14. Since the insurance charge of Rs. 300/- was paid by the complainant for taking theft insurance policy, the complainant is not entitled to get the said amount from the opposite parties in connection with this dispute.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of March, 2013.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Nikhil John.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Tax invoice dated 15.03.2012 for Rs. 30,499/- issued by
the first opposite party to the complainant.
A2 : Copy of insurance certificate issued by United India
Insurance Company Ltd., to the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Nikhil John, Chirayathu A.N. Cottage,
Anthiyalankavu P.O., Anthiyalankavu Muri,
Naranganam Village, Kozhencherry Taluk. (2) Proprietor, Mobile Store, XXI/1268, Kuzhiyil Building,
Pathanamthitta P.O., Pin – 689 645,
(3) Manager, SMG Electronics, Kulathoor Building,
Memevettipuram, Pathanamthitta P.O.,
Pin – 689 645.
(4) Manager, Jumbo Electronics, SCS Junction, Marthoma
Building, Thiruvalla, Pin – 689 101.
(5) CEO, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 7th & 8th
Floor, IFCI Tower 61, Nehru Palace, New Delhi.
(6) The Stock File.
