Karnataka

Kolar

CC/58/2019

VamishiKrishna M - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Sangeetha Mobile Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.M.S.Venkatesh Prasad

18 Jan 2020

ORDER

Date of Filing: 19.08.2019

Date of Order: 18.01.2020

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 58 OF 2019

Vamshikrishna M,

S/o. N.L. Manjunatha,

Aged About 19 Years,

R/at: Patalamma Street,

Yeldur Village & Hobli,

Srinivspur Taluk,

Kolar District.                                                  ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by M.S. Venkateshprasad, Advocate)

 

- V/s –

1) The Proprietor,

Sangeetha Mobile Private Limited,

No.15, Ground Floor, Double Road,

Chintamani Town,

Chickballapur Dist.

(In-person)

 

2) The Manager,

Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd.,

6^th Floor, DLF Center, Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110 00.

(Rep. by Sri.T.N. Ramesh, Advocate)                           …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

ORDER

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has filed this complaint against opposite parties and prays to direct the OPs to repay the entire amount paid by the him towards purchase of mobile phone i.e., Samsung Galaxy A50 from OP No.1 through invoice No.SSI/1920/CTM/17 for a sum of Rs.23,250.20 along with interest from the date of purchase till realization of the amount and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/, miscellaneous charges of Rs.10,000/- mental agony and damages of Rs.5,000/- and prays to allow the complaint.

02.   The brief facts of the complainant case is that, on 23.05.2019 he purchased the mobile phone from OP No.1 for Rs.23,250.20 vide invoice No.SSI/1920/CTM17 and the OP assured and given warranty for one year.  The said MOBILE phone within five days caused trouble and not functioning properly.  The complainant has brought the notice of the same to OP No.1 and requested to repair the said mobile phone and OP No.1 has given evasive answer and refused to replace or repay the amount and advised to approach Samsung Service Center.  The complainant went to Samsung Service Center i.e., Limras Refrigeration and Electrical authorized Samsung service center, Kolar and they stated that, there is no warrant to the said mobile phone, they cannot repair the same under warranty condition and they have given quotation demanding a sum of Rs.11,351/- for the repair of the said mobile and on hearing the same the complainant surprised as the said mobile was launched by the OP No.2 company one month prior to the purchase.  The OP No.2 has its own reputation and name in the entire world in dealing with mobile phone and on the said faith and assurance of the OP No.1 the complainant has purchased the same with a fond hope that, it will be very useful for his study purpose and all the hopes and faith shuttered in view of unfair acts of the OP.  The OP No.1 has violated the warranty period in replacing the said trouble mobile phone.  The complainant requested the OP to repair the same on several times and all the efforts made by him went in vain.  The complainant has issued legal notice on 24.05.2019 and the OPs in spite of service of notice did not complied the same and thereafter the complainant has approached this Forum for the above said relief and prays to allow the complaint.

03.   OP Nos.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their version.  OP No.1 has contended that, the complaint filed by the complainant against this OP is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limine.  The said Sangeetha Mobile Private Limited is a Private Limited Company dealing in sales of various kinds of mobile handsets of various manufacturers and through its network of 570+ outlets situated across Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Pondichery, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat states, having its registered office at No.1183, 22^nd “A” Cross, Banashankari 2^nd Stage, Bangalore-560070 and has one of its outlet/showroom situated at No.15, Ground Floor, Double Road, Chintamani Town, Chikkaballapur District, i.e., OP No.1.  The complainant has purchased the said hand-set bearing IMEI No.356129107114370 on 03.05.2019, vide invoice No.SSI/1920/17, for Rs.23,250/- from OP No.1 and is only doing the role of a facilitator and permitted to sell the mobile handsets without opening the seal of the sealed container box as they are a retailer.  The manufacturer has been arrayed as OP No.2 and in case of manufacturing defect, the manufacturer can remedy the situation for customer as per the warranty and not by OP No.1.  The warranty is generally conveyed to the consumer orally during the time of purchase and it also appears as one of the terms of intimation in the invoice at Point No.2 that, “warranty whatsoever provided is by the manufacturers and not by Sangeetha Mobiles Private Limited.   The complainant approached OP No.1 contending that, the said mobile handset was not functioning properly and OP No.1 informed the complainant to approach authorized service center of the manufacturer to avail service free of cost during the period of warranty, as OP No.1 is not authorized for service as per Point No.3 of terms and conditions of invoice reflected that after sale the customer needs to contact the brand’s authorized service center and the OP No.1 conveyed and sent the complainant to the authorized service center of the manufacturer, as the said mobile phone was still within the warranty period.  If the authorized service center of the manufacturer failed to provide satisfactory service to the complainant the manufacturer of the said mobile will be solely responsible and liable to provide better service or to replace the mobile handset in case the defect is not cured.  It is the duty of the authorized service center of the manufacturer to rectify the defects in the mobile handset and OP No.1 has not committed any deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant.  The OP No.1 is not liable to replace the mobile set or to pay compensation as claimed by the complainant and prays to dismiss the complaint against this OP.

04.   OP No.2 has contended that, the complaint is baseless, devoid of merits and without any cause of action whatsoever against OP NO.2.  The complainant has failed to approach the Forum with clean hands and failed to explain the background of the service history.  The said complaint is also not maintainable due to non-joinder of proper and necessary party to decide the issue raised by the complainant.  The said complaint deserves to be dismissed.  The allegations made in the complaint against this OP are not true and correct and the same is set-up by the complainant to suit his convenience.  The complainant has filed this complaint by suppressing material facts.  This OP has further contended that, it is the duty of the complainant to place documentary evidence to establish his claim and in the present case all the allegations are oral in nature and not supported with any documentary evidence.  The complainant has also not produced warranty card to determine the warranty conditions.  OP No.2 has produced warranty card as Annexure-1.  The purchase of mobile on 03.05.2019 is a matter of record and one year warranty provided towards product performance and the same is subject to terms and conditions stipulated in the warranty card.  Even though the mobile is provided with one year warranty, it does not empower the complainant to demand free of cost service or replacement of unit in all the cases and more particularly as and when the mobile is physically damaged or liquid logged and this service will be treated as void service, the said issue does not fall within the ambit of technical fault or bad workmanship as such the customer is not eligible for free of cost service or replacement of unit.  The void service request will be attended on chargeable basis since the said issue will arise only on account of negligent act of the customer at the time of usage of the mobile.  OP No.2 further contended that, in the warranty card the Company clearly stated under what circumstances warranty is applicable as well as when the warranty becomes void.  The allegation of the complainant that, within five days his mobile caused trouble and not functioned properly is not due to technical fault in the mobile, but on account of waterlog to his mobile;  The complainant intentionally withholds this point before this Forum to escape any financial liability on his part.  The OP No.2 is not aware that the complainant has approached the dealer and made a request for replacement.  However it is brought to the notice of the Forum even though the complainant had approached the dealer within a short span of time that does not empower the complainant to get back refund or replacement of mobile as it is the complainant’s obligation to establish existence of inherent manufacturing defect of the mobile.  The complainant approached the company service center is not disputed.  However the allegation of the complainant that the mobile does not have any warranty as per service center is not true and correct.  The service engineer specifically informed the complainant that, his requested service issue does not come in-warranty due to liquid log to his mobile and which will be considered as void service request as per warranty terms and conditions.  And the service center has issued repair estimate which is as per company service policy coupled with warranty conditions.  OP No.2 further contended that, due to liquid log impact, few internal parts such as PBA & sub-PBA were damaged which need replacement for normal function and the damage caused to these parts is not arisen due to technical fault in the mobile or bad workmanship, but it happened on account of negligence act of the customer at the time of usage.  OP No.2 has produced the images of internal parts of the damage as per Annexures-2 & 3.  This OP has denied the allegation of the complainant that, due to unfair acts of OPs he could not use the mobile for his study purpose.  The complainant is well aware that, his mobile is waterlogged and same will be rectified on chargeable basis.  Per contra it is alleged that, no repair and replacement is made even though the mobile is within warranty.  In the entire complaint there is no specific allegation about existence of inherent defect in the mobile.  The only allegation of the complainant is that, his service request is not attended free of cost even though the mobile is within warranty.  The demand made in the legal notice is contrary to the claim made in the complaint.  The complainant has failed to establish what mental agony he has suffered when he did not approved the repair estimate given by the service center and payment of monetary compensation does not arise and so also question of payment of litigation charges does not arise as the complaint is frivolous and prays to dismiss the complaint.

05.   Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted following 05 documents:-

(i) Original Invoice dated: 03.05.2019 – Annexure-1

(ii) Original Estimation dated: 20.05.2019 issued by Limras Refrigeration – Annexure-2

(iii) Xerox copy of the Legal Notice issued on the OPs – Annexure-3

(iv) Original postal acknowledgment – Annexure-4

(v) Xerox copy of Aadhar Card – Annexure-5

(vi) Original Letter of Authorization dated: 25.09.2019

 

06.   On 08.11.2019 the counsel appearing for complainant has submitted affidavit of complainant by way of examination-in-chief and on 19.11.2019 the complainant has filed list with Xerox copies of 06 documents i.e., invoice dated: 03.05.2019, estimation dated: 20.05.2019 legal notice dated: 24.05.2019, reply notice dated: 10.06.2019 and 25.05.2019 of OP Nos.1 & 2 respectively as per Annexure-C.1 to C.7 also filed Memo dated: 03.12.2019 with three documents i.e., pamphlet and two photos and filed Memo dated: 27.12.2019 with warranty card.

07.   One Mr. Mubarak Pasha, Store Leader, has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief on behalf of OP No.1 and one Mr. Anup Kumar Mathur, Director, Technical Support – Customer Satisfaction, has filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief on behalf of OP No.2.  On 11.10.2019 OP No.2 has filed List with documents i.e.,

(i) Copy of the warranty card – Annexure-1

(ii) Liquid log images- Annexure-2 & 3

08.   On 27.12.2019 OP No.2 has submitted following list of authorities:-

1. I (2006) CPJ 92 (NC) – Head Note
2. I (2017) CPJ 25 (Utta) – Head Note
3. FA 231/2015-AP@para-7

09.   We have heard the arguments of both complainant and OP No.2.  OP No.1 has not addressed argument.

10.   Now the points that do arise for consideration are that:-

(1)    Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs?

 

(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed by him?

 

(3) What order?

 

11.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1) & (2):-      Are in the Negative

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

12.   POINTS (1) & (2):-

These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and reasonings as they are interlinked to each other.  We have perused the complaint, version of OPs, affidavit of the complainant and the OPs and so also the documents produced by the complainant and OP No.2.  It is a fact that the complainant had purchased the Samsung Galaxy A50 mobile phone from OP No.1 for Rs.23,250.20 on 23.05.2019 and to that effect the complainant has produced the original tax paid invoice as per Annsure-1 and to that effect there is no dispute in it.  The complainant has also produced estimation for repair of the said mobile as Annexure-2.

 

13.   The allegation of the complainant is that, within five days of purchase of the alleged mobile it caused trouble and not properly functioned and he approached OP No.1 and requested to replace the mobile or to repay the amount and OP No.1 has given evasive reply and advised to approach the Samsung authorized service center.  The complainant approached the Limras Refrigeration and Electrical, an authorized Samsung Service Center, Sharada Talkies Road, Kolar, and they stated that there is no warranty to the said mobile and they cannot repair and given estimation as Annexure-2 demanding Rs.11,351/- for repair of the said alleged mobile and all his faith and hopes were shuttered and the OP No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the companies warranty period in repairing or replacing the trouble mobile in spite of several efforts made by the complainant.  The complainant has also caused legal notice against OPs, but OPs did not comply the same in spite of service of notice.

 

14.   On perusal of the above said material facts the complainant has made allegation only against OP No.1, but relief is prayed against both Ops though the complainant has not at all made any allegation about the manufacturing defect in the mobile.  The OP No.1 is the dealer of sales of various kind of mobile handset of various manufacturers and its registered office is situated at No.1183, 22^nd “A” Cross, Banashankari 2^nd Stage, Bangalore, and OP No.1 office is situated at No.15, Ground Floor, Double Road, Chintamani Town, Chikkaballapur District and OP No.1 is not authorized to repair or provide service and the said fact clearly goes to show that, the OP No.1 is authorized only to sale the mobiles of various manufacturers and the allegation made against OP No.1 that, OP No.1 has violated the condition of companies warranty period is not sustainable.  The authorized service center is responsible for making service and repairs such being so there is no any deficiency of service as against OP No.1.

 

15.   The complainant has also alleged that, OP No.1 has advised him to approach Samsung service center and thereafter the complainant went to Samsung Service Center i.e., Limras Refrigeration and Electrical, an authorized Samsung Service Center, Sharada Talkies Road, Kolar, and they stated that, there is no warranty to the said mobile and they cannot repair under warranty and demanded Rs.11,350/- to repair the said mobile, but the complainant has not made the said service center as a party to the proceedings though the said service center is a necessary party and the complaint filed by the complainant is also bad for non-joinder of necessary party.

 

16.   OP No.2 the manufacturer of Samsung mobile has contended that, the complainant has made allegation about the product and claiming certain relief and the complainant has not produced any document to establish his oral allegation.  OP No.2 has contended that, one year warranty was provided towards product performance subject to terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty card.  The OP No.1 has produced Xerox copy of the warranty card as per Anneuxre-1 and it revealed that, warranty shall be void if product has water logging, misuse, etc. OP No.2 has also contended that, even though the mobile is provided with one year warranty, it does not empower the complainant to demand FOC (free of cost) service or replace the unit when the mobile is physically damaged or liquid logged and such services are treated as void service which does not fall within the ambit of technical fault or bad workmanship and the manufacturer are not liable for FOC service or to replacement of the unit.  The void service of request will be attended on chargeable basis as the issue raised on account of negligent act of the customer in handling the mobile.

 

17.   OP No.2 has also contended that, the allegation of the complainant that, within five days the mobile caused trouble and not functioned properly is not due to technical fault in the mobile, but on account of waterlog to the said mobile and the complainant intentionally withhold the said point before the Hon’ble forum to escape from financial liability on his part.  The OP has also contended that, due to liquid logged impact the internal parts such as PBA and sub-PBA were damaged which need replacement for normal function and thus impacts are not raised due to technical fault in the mobile or by the bad workmanship and it happened on account of negligent act of the customer at the time of usage and has produced images of internal parts damaged as per Annexure-2 & 3.  OP No.2 further contended that, the complainant has not made any specific allegation about defect in the mobile.  The above said material facts and Annexure-1 to 3 documents produced by the complainant i.e., warranty card and two images of internal parts damage due to water logging which clearly establishes that, there is no any manufacturing defect in the alleged mobile and the alleged defect as contended by the complainant is caused only due to negligent act of the complainant in using the said mobile phone.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2.

 

18.   The counsel for the complainant has addressed arguments and relied the documents i.e., pamphlet and two photo stating about unbreakable and the water proof.  On perusal of the pamphlet it reveals that, the mobiles which were sold by Sangeetha are unbreakable and water proof and the same has been exhibited in the said pamphlet and two photo which were published to the public.  But the complainant has not at all taken the said allegation in its Consumer complaint against OP No.1.  Hence the said argument addressed by the counsel for the complainant is goes in vain.

 

19.   On perusal of Exhibits Annexure-2 & 3 produced by OP No.2, it clearly establishes that, the alleged mobile phone is liquid damage and the same is not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty as per Annexure-1 and the OP No.1 is only seller of mobiles of various manufacturers and there is no case is made out against OP No.1.  OP No.2 is the manufacturer of alleged mobile and the complainant has not made out any manufacturing defect in the alleged mobile.  Hence the complainant has not made out any case against OPs and the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed by him as the said complaint is false and frivolous and suppression of material fact of water logging and not come to the Court with clean hands.  Hence as discussed above, the said complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed and accordingly we answer Point Nos.1 & 2 are in the negative.

 

POINT No.3:-

20.   In view of our findings on Point Nos.1 & 2 and the discussion made thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainant is Dismissed. 

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 18^th DAY OF JANUARY 2020)

 

 

 

 

   LADY MEMBER                         PRESIDENT