Complaint filed on: 25.01.2016

Complaint Disposed on:18.02.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.

COMPLAINT NO.4/2016

DATED THIS THE 18^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

:PRESENT:

HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT

HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER

HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER

COMPLAINANT:

Sri. Vikram Naik,

S/o G.Murthy Naik,

Aged about 25 years,

R/o 6^th Cross,

Nilambika Marga,

Kalyana Nagara, Jyothi Nagar Post,

Chikmagalur.  

(By Sri/Smt. C.Mohankumar, Advocate)

V/s

OPPONENT:

1.     The Proprietor,

        Mina Enterprise,

        Samsung Smart Cafe,

        Mina Arcade, I.G Road,

        Chikmagalur-577101.

2.     Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd.,

        B-1 Sector, 81 Phase-2,

        Noida, Goutham Budh Nagar,

        Uttar Pradesh.

 (OP No.1 – Ex-parte)

(OP 2 By Sri/Smt. T.N Ramesh, Advocate)

By Hon’ble Member Smt. H. Manjula,

:O R D E R:

The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos. 1 & 2 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in selling defective handset and refuse to repair the said handset to the complainant. Hence, prays for direction against OP No.1 & 2 to refund an amount Rs.8,350/- along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

2.     The brief facts of the complaint is that:

The complainant had purchased the mobile handset Model No.MOBILESM-J200G GOLDINGS from Op No.1 on 05.10.2015 by paying Rs.8,350/-, the said handset manufactured by Op No.2, at the time of purchase of mobile handset Op No.1 issued invoice bearing no.29371156679 and bill no.S15/903 and also IMEI No.353508073741469.

The said mobile handset purchased nearly 2 months 26 days, the said handset was not working properly. The complainant noticed that the handset used to switch off and fully out of order. The complainant had approached the Op No.1 to get it repaired and Op No.1 refused to repair and he demanded the repair charges of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, complainant prays for refund the amount paid towards mobile handset along with compensation for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in selling defective handset.

3.     Therefore the complainant issued legal notice dated 09.01.2016 and called upon both the parties to settle the matter, even in spite of receipt of the said legal notice the Op no.2 failed to comply the notice and Op No.1 replied the said notice and not to settled the matter. Hence, Op No.1 and 2 rendered a deficiency in service in not settling the claim. Hence, prays for direction against Op No.1 and 2 to settle the claim along with compensation for deficiency in service.

4. After service of notice the OP No.1 not appeared before this Forum and hence placed Ex-parte.  The OP No. 2   appeared through his counsel and filed the version.

        The OP No. 2 in his version has contended that the complainant never stated about his attempt in securing certain service from authorized service centre, but the complainant alleges that the dealer who is is Op No.1 in this complaint has demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for repair his device in fact the device is stopped function from waterlogged. So, customer is liable to pay service cost as well as for replacement of parts. The complainant approached the service centre on 02.01.2016 with dead condition of his mobile and service centre has raised a job sheet bearing no.4207272517, after inspection it is found that the mobile handset is waterlogged, the said issue is outside the purview of warranty, the service engineer raised repair estimate and sought pre-approval from the complainant to complete the repair work, but the complainant did not approve to repair estimate given by Op No.2 service engineer. In the job sheet it is clearly mentioned that if the device is stopped function due to waterlogged, so they have not violated any terms and conditions and there is no deficiency in service in not settling the claim of the complainant and they are not liable to pay any claim towards damage of mobile handset and compensation to the complainant as prayed in the complaint. Hence, Op No.2 prays for dismissal of the complaint.   

5.     The complainant filed affidavit and marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P5.  The OP Nos. 2 also filed affidavit and marked the document as Ex.R1 and memo with documents

5.     Heard the arguments

6.     In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice  or deficiency in service on the part of Ops?

2.  Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?

7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

1. Point No.1: Negative.  
2. Point No.2: As per Order below. 

: R E A S O N S :

POINT NOs. 1 & 2:

8.     The complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service against Op no.1 and 2. On going through the affidavit and documents produced by both the complainant and Op no.2, there is no dispute that the complainant has purchased model no.MOBILESM-J200G GOLDINGS mobile handset on 05.10.2015 from Op no.1 by paying of Rs.8,350/- the said invoice bill is marked as Ex.P.1.The complainant also produced office copy of the legal notice marked as Ex.P.2 and reply given by Op no.2 marked as Ex.P.3 in support of his allegations on observation of the said documents we found there is no any materials to establish there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. On the other hand on observation of the reply to the legal notice Op no.2 had stated there is a problem of water logging in the mobile handset in support of that Op no.2 produced memo with documents such as acknowledgment of service request which clearly shows that there is water logging problem in the mobile handset for which engineer of Op no.2 had given estimation of Rs.5,000/- for repair of mobile handset as per warranty conditions the said water problem is not covered. Hence, the complainant has to pay the repaid charges if at all he wants to repair the mobile handset. We found there is no any manufacturing defect found in the mobile handset and the complainant failed to establish unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of Op no.2. Hence, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the negative and proceed to pass the following:-    

: O R D E R :

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

2. Send free copies of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by him, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 18^th day of February 2017).

                                 (RAVISHANKAR)

                                      President

(B.U.GEETHA)                                         (H. MANJULA) 

     Member                                                    Member   

ANNEXURES

Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:

Ex. P1               -           Retail invoice dt:05.10.2015  

Ex.P2                -           Legal notice issued by complainant

Ex.P3                -           Reply to the notice issued by complainant

Ex.P4                -           Postal acknowledgment due

Ex.P.5               -           Courier receipt

M.O.1               -           Samsung Mobile Handset

Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:

Ex. R1              -           Authorization letter issued by Op no.2

Dated:18.02.2017                         Member

                                          District Consumer Forum,

                                                  Chikmagalur.