Ld Advocates for the parties are present. Judgement is pronounced in open Commission.

BY - SRI. SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER

1. Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 are the Authorized Seller and Authorized Service Centre respectively of the Opposite Party No.3 which is a manufacturer of Complainant’s Mobile Handset. The Complainant purchased a SAMSUNG Branded Mobile Handset (A22 6/128) on 03.10.2021 at a consideration of Rs.17,500.00, vide Batch No.356890803451289, Model No.SMA225FZKRINS, IMEI Code: 356890803451289 with One Year Warranty from the store of Opposite Party No.1.

2. Unfortunately since very inception of purchase, the said Mobile Handset was not working properly and on 11.02.2022 the Display of the said Mobile Handset suddenly stopped working for which the Complainant went to the Op No.2 being an Authorized Service Centre of the Op No.3 to check the problem in Mobile Handset. Being convinced and getting assurance for repairing at free of costs within the warranty period, the Complainant had given the Mobile Handset to the Op No.2 and thereafter returned the same after few days.

3. After few months, again on 02.07.2022, a new problem regarding the ‘line display’ of the said mobile was found and the Complainant again went to the office of the Op No.2 who primarily examined the mobile in presence of the Complainant and after satisfying about the said problem, took the mobile with them for repair which is still in the custody of Op No.2.

4. On 06.07.2022, the Complainant received an email bearing Acknowledgment of Service Request from the corner of the Ops which speaks that the said repair is under process and the warranty status for the mobile is full.

5. On 06.07.2022, the Complainant was astonished to receive another email bearing Acknowledgment of Service Request from the corner of the Ops which speaks that the said mobile is out of warranty. Thereafter, on the very day, the Complainant received one call from the Op No.2 informing about the liquid damage inside the mobile handset for which your Complainant have to pay Rs.6,000.00 (approx.) to repair.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the unfair trade practice, the Complainant emailed to Op No.3 for the same vide Complaint Reference No.1178204750 but, no fruitful result came.

7. Apart from that, several telephonic and email conversation took place between the Complainant and Ops. But, the situation not changed, rather mental paid and agony increased.

8. More interestingly, the Complainant received an email from the Ops on 23.07.2022 where it is informed, the FAB ID of Mobile Handset is mismatched and demanded Rs.5,326.00 for repairing such liquid damage inside the mobile handset.

9. The Complainant submits that when the Op No.2 received the Mobile Handset in question from the Complainant for repair, there was no question of any liquid damage or mismatch of FAB ID; rather they received the Mobile Handset after due verification and was not informed about the said matter. The Ops in connivance with each other are running these sorts of unfair trade practice in order to dupe the hard earned money of the Complainant.

10. The cause of action of this case arose firstly on and from 11.02.2022 when the display of Mobile Handset stopped working and secondly/lastly on 02.07.2022 when it was stopped working and thus the instant Complaint was filed within the prescribed period in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The Complainant, therefore, prays for:-

1. To direct the Ops jointly and severally to refund Rs.17,500.00 against the said Mobile Handset to the Complainant.

2. To pay exemplary Compensation of Rs.50,000.00 to the Complainant by the Ops for unfair trade practice, harassment, mental pain and agony.

3. To pay Litigation Cost of Rs.20,000.00 to the Complainant for conducting the case.

4. Any other reliefs.

11. Notices were duly served upon all the Ops but they failed to file Written Version within statutory period of 45 days, thus the case proceeded exparte against them vide Order No.5. dated: 01.12.2022.

12.           Points for determination are:

1.  Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law? 
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

13. Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the Affidavit of the Complainant along with all other documents.

3. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Ops, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

4. Op No.2 is an Authorized Service Centre of the Op No.3 which is a Manufacturing Company of Mobile Handset. It appears that since the very inception of purchase the Complainant has an issue with the ‘Display’ of said Mobile Handset which the Service Provider i.e. Op No.2 acknowledged on 11.02.2022 and repaired accordingly at free of cost within the warrantee period. Again few days later i.e. on 02.07.2022, a new problem i.e. ‘Lining on the said Display’ has arisen and ‘Display Blank – Data Delete’ repeated on the same Mobile Handset which the Op No.2 taken their custody from the Complainant after examining the same. But, after four days i.e. on 06.07.2022 the Op No.2 sent two emails to the Complainant by informing about the repair in progress under warranty and another for out of warranty along with a Telephone Call for approximate cost of Rs.6,000.00 to repair the detected liquid damage inside the Mobile Handset.

5. From the above discussion, this Commission observed the ‘Display’ of the said Mobile Handset is itself a defective one i.e. manufacturing defect from the very beginning and therefore, same types of problem ‘Display Blank (Data Delete)’ are arising repeatedly and frequently which is also narrated in the two Acknowledgment(s) issued by Op No.2 on 11.02.2022 and 02.07.2022 respectively along with in two emailed Acknowledgments of Service Requests both dated: 06.07.2022. Moreover, the said Mobile Handset was in the custody of the Op No.2 for four days i.e. from 02.07.2022 to 06.07.2022. Therefore, how the Op No.2 is sanguine about the said liquid damages from the Complainant only? It can be damaged from the custody of Op No.2 also. It is also the duty of the Service Provider to bring notice of any detected manufacturing defect of the product to the manufacturer if it cannot be sorted out at their level towards future improvement as well as research and development (R&D). The Op No.2 being a service provider of the manufacturer of the product i.e. Op No.3 has failed to do so and instead they harassed the Complainant and compelled him to suffer mental pain and agony, even within the Warranty Period. Failure of internal system in the Service Centre of Op No.2 due to no internet facility for continuous three days Load Sheading is not acceptable. Op No.2 being a professionally managed service provider of a Big MNC like Op No.3, alternative arrangement for Power Backup should be there.

6. Moreover, the Ops No.3 has not filed any  petition towards proper analysis or test report by the Complainant from the appropriate laboratory with a direction to determine whether the said Mobile Handset has a manufacturing defect or not.

7. The Op No.3 being a Manufacturer of Mobile Handset has the duty to duly entertain every complaint of the customer irrespective of any warranty period, if not sorted by its’ authorized service Centre. Moreover, when the Manufacturer authorizes a Service Centre to provide the service for and on its’ behalf to the customer, it should have a responsibility on the act of its’ agent i.e. the Service Provider. In both the cases the Op No.3 fails to serve the consumer.

8. Therefore, from the unchallenged evidence of complainant it clearly transpires that there are elements of negligence and deficiency in service by both the Ops.2 and 3.

1. Now, coming to the matter of reliefs. The Op No.2 and 3 can’t get absolved from the mischief of negligence, unfair trade practice, harassment and deficiency in service. So, we think it would just and proper if we direct the Op No.2 & 3 to refund jointly or severally a sum of Rs.17,500.00 towards the Cost of Mobile Handset with a liberty to retain the said Mobile Handset forever; to pay Compensation of Rs.2,500.00 and Rs.2,500.00 as Litigation Costs to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order in default the Op No.2 and 3, jointly or severally will have to Simple Interest @ 8% per annum in addition to the said amount for non-compliance from the date of this order.

10. Accordingly, both the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.

11.  Thus, the complaint case succeeds.

Hence, it is

        O R D E R E D

That the CC-114 of 2022 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against Ops No.2 and 3 and dismissed against Op No.1.

1. The Op No.2 & 3, who are jointly or severally liable, are  directed to pay a sum of Rs.17,500.00 towards the Cost of Mobile Handset with a liberty to retain the said Mobile Handset forever; to pay Compensation of Rs.2,500.00 and Rs.2,500.00 as Litigation Costs to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order;  in default the Op No.2 & 3 will have to pay Simple Interest @ 8% per annum over the awarded amount  from the date of this order till the date of actual realization.

2. The Complainant would be at liberty to put the order into execution u/s 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and to initiate a proceeding u/s 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

3. Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the Complainant free of cost. The judgment be uploaded forthwith in the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

4. File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this judgment.