DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  11^th  day of November, 2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                 Date of Filing: 05/08/2021    

     CC/124/2021

Parvathikutty T.,
            D/o.Muralikrishnan Nair,

Vadissery Pathayapura (House)

Nellaya (PO),  Palakkad – 679 335                             -           Complainant

(Party in person)  

                                                                                    Vs

1. Proprietor,

       Network Mobiles,

       8/1058, Doha Tower,

       RS Road, Ottapalam – 679 101

2. Managing Director,

              M/s. Samsung India Electronic India Pvt.Ltd.

       No.27/224/13, Kadavanthara,

       Cochin – 682 020.                                                      -          Opposite parties

            (OP2 by Adv.M/s.Manimangalath Sameer Babu &

              M.Ramesh)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Pleadings in brief shows that Complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party for education purpose of her children. While the mobile phone was in the warranty period the display was  switched off. Mobile phone was handed over to the 1^st opposite party, authorized service centre. Despite the mobile phone being in the warranty period, the 1^st opposite party refused the coverage under the warranty as the 1^st opposite party alleged that the mobile phone suffered from scratches and directed the complainant to remit Rs. 10,500/- for service of the mobile phone. Aggrieved thereby, this complaint is filed.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance.

O.P.1 had not filed any written statement. It is mistakenly stated in the proceedings sheet maintained by this Commission that the 1^st opposite party had filed statement.

O.P.2 filed version repudiating complaint allegations. They stated that the warranty was void in view of the physical damages (scratches) sustained by the mobile phone. They sought for dismissal of the complaint.

3.         Following issues arise for consideration.

1.         Whether repudiation of complainant’s claim by opposite parties for repair under warranty sustainable?

2.         Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.?

3.         Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?

4.         Any other Reliefs?

4.         Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. A1 to A3. O.P.1 did not adduce any evidence. 2^nd O.P. filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. B1 to B7.

            Issue No. 1

5.         Complaint pleadings state that the Mobile phone switched off while it was still in warranty period. Eventhough the opposite parties admit that the mobile phone suffers from damage, they hold that the warranty was void in view of the impact/mishandling.

6.         Exhibit A3/ B2 acknowledgement of service request shows the “Defect description” as “hard scratch on display in bottom corner side”.

Ext. B3 series are two photographs. The said photographs show scratches on the sides (edges) of the mobile phone. But it does not show any “hard scratch on display in bottom corner side”. Had there been any scratches on the display, opposite parties would have surely had photographs of the same. A scratch can occur even when the equipment brushes against another surface. It need not be from impact. Therefore we presume that the display is intact and does not suffer from any scratches.

7.         Ext. B6 is the Q&A list. A query regarding the complainant’s mobile phone is placed before the expert of the manufacturer. Question-Description is shown as below:

            “Question Description: The above claime  no customer was visited on 09/07/2021, The complaint is display blank. Our engineer and QUP verified display is complaint. But in lcd panel(display frame) there is a minor and visible small dots. Engineer checked and verified ELS pass except that scratch. Is it covers in warranty or not?”(sic)

                        Answer to the query is like herein below:

            “As per attached picture there have some dent visible in the OCTA which can happened due to customer misuse so it will not consider in warranty.”(sic)

                        The question shows that there are only minor and visible dots. The technician of 1^st opposite party concurred that the complaint can be rectified, except for that scratch. The scratches are only minor small dots. A perusal of Ext. B3 shows that dots does not even qualify to be scratch. Upon perusing the said photographs, the expert of the manufacturer (without even verifying the mobile phone physically) comes to a conclusion that the damages were caused by misuse of the complainant. The manufacturer converts the dots into dents, without even seeing the mobile phone.

                        But a crucial question is not answered. The opposite parties have failed to prove that the problem suffered by the mobile phone arise out of the alleged misuse of the phone.

8.         In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the there is no reasonable ground for refusing to provide warranty cover to the mobile phone of the complainant. Issue number 1 is found against opposite party 2.

Issue no. 2.

9.         Apropos the discussion and conclusion above, we hold that the 2^nd opposite party has resorted to unfair trade practice. The complainant is entitled to be compensated for the said unfair trade practice.

            Issue Nos. 3 & 4

10.       In view of the discussion above we hold as follows:

1.         The opposite party 2 is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for unfair trade practice.

2.         An amount of Rs. 20,000/- is directed to be paid as cost of these proceedings.

3.         Opposite party 1 is directed to rectify the defect of the mobile phone under warranty, free of cost.

4.         In view of the non-usage for over one year, if the mobile is suffering from any other damages, the 1^st opposite party shall rectify the same also free of cost.

5.         The 1^st opposite party shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the 1^st opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

                        Pronounced in open court on this the 11^th  day of November, 2022.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

         Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                       Member        

                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1  -    Tax invoice bearing No.1-PMN-1998

Ext.A2  -     Extended warranty Certificate

Ext.A3  –    Original acknowledgement of service request.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:  

Ext.B1 – Printout of power of attorney in favour of authorised signatory.

Ext.B2 – Copy of acknowledgement of service request dated 9/7/21

Ext.B3 – Printout of 2 photographs.

Ext.B4 – Print out of estimate dated 9/7/21

Ext.B5 – Printout of email communication dated 29/9/21

Ext.B6 – Printout of Q&A dated 11/7/21

Ext.B7 – Copy of warranty card

Court Exhibit:   Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.