IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 30th day of May, 2018
Filed on 14.11.2017
Present
1. Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim , BA,LLM (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.304/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
K.V.Sajeev 1. Proprietor
S/o Vijayan, Radio Centre, Thevarcad
Kunnummachira House, Building, Near Vazhicherry Bridge
Avalookunnu P.O, Alappuzha-688001
Alappuzha.
(By Adv.T.D.Rajendrakumar) 2. Accel Frontline Ltd,
14/166, 1st Floor, J.P.Tower,
VCSB Road, Alappuzha-688011
Rep.by its-Chief Executive Officer.
3. Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd,
A25, Ground Floor, Front Tower,
Mohan Co-operativ Industrial
Estate, New Delhi-110044.
Rep.by its-Chief Executive Officer.
(By Adv.P.S.Anaghan)
ORDER
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The above case is based on a consumer complaint filed by K.V.Sajeev against three opposite parties seeking refund of the price of the Mobile Phone together with compensation and cost.
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a mobile phone from the 1st opposite party manufactured by the 3rd opposite party for an amount of Rs. 24,500/- on 3/9/2017. As there was no ready cash available with the complainant the 1st opposite party arranged a loan for the full amount from Bajaj Financial Service and also an amount of Rs. 400/- was charged by the 1st opposite party as processing charges. After 3 days from the date of purchase (that is on 6/9/2017) when the complainant tried to connect the charger to the mobile phone he got electrocuted from the mobile phone. The complainant there after approached the 1st opposite party and informed about the incident and the 1st opposite party directed the complainant to entrust the phone to the 2nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of 3rd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party assured to return the phone within one week after rectifying the defect. Even though the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party many times for getting the phone, they have not returned the phone so far. The 2nd opposite party in their job sheet specifically stated that that set was fallen and display broken. Therefore the opposite parties are liable to replace the defective phone since the opposite party failed to rectify the defect or to replace the phone. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
2. Though notice was served on opposite parties 1&2, the 1st opposite party did not appear before the Forum hence set exparte. 2nd opposite party represented before the Forum but did not filed version. 3rd opposite party filed version.
3. Version of the 3rd opposite parties is as follows.
Complainant has wrongly impleaded the 3rd opposite party as a party to the complaint and there was no manufacturing defect to the said mobile set. The problem in the mobile set occured due to mishandling of the phone by the complainant. The complainant has suppressed material facts. There were no defects to the mobile set and defects if any found happened is only due to mishandling, physical damage. The complainant himself admitted that the set had fallen from his hand also after inspection it was found that there were no product defects or manufacturing defects and it was due to the mishandling which caused the damage. The complainant was given proper instructions on how to maintain, use the mobile set, which the complainant have failed to follow, and which resulted in physical damage to the mobile set by the complainant. This opposite party is willing to carry out necessary repairs and replacement of the parts strictly as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. The complainant demanded that the set fallen from the hand so there was physical damage and mishandle to the mobile set the defect in the mobile phone which occurred due to physical damage and warranty does not covered for the same, hence the complaint may be dismissed.
4. Considering the allegations of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief sought for?
3) Reliefs and costs.
5. Complainant was examined as PW1 and got marked Ext.A1 to A3 documents. Ext.A1 is the bill dated 3/9/2017. Ext.A2 is the service request dated 9/11/2017. Ext. A3 is the warranty card.
6. Point No. 1 & 2
The specific case of the complainant is that while charging the mobile phone there was a spark from the mobile phone and the complainant got electrocuted from the mobile phone and the phone was fallen down and physically damaged. The contention of the opposite party is that physical damage will not be covered under warranty. In Ext.A2 service request issued by the 2nd opposite party it is stated that the set was burnt and display broken. Ext.A2 made it clear that the set was burnt as alleged in the complaint. In view of the pleadings and evidence available on record it is clear that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile phone and that is why it was burned and fallen down when the complainant was attempting to charge the same within one week of its purchase. So opposite parties are liable to repair or replace the same. Admittedly the phone has been entrusted to the 2nd opposite party for replacing the same. Since they failed to replace the same even after getting intimation there is deficiency in service. In the circumstances the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the
mental agony and inconvenience caused to him. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable for the same. The points answered accordingly.
Point No. 3
In the result the complaint stands allowed. The opposite parties No.1 to 3 are directed to replace the damaged mobile phone with a new one having similar value and features or refund Rs.24,500/- (being the price of the mobile phone) to the complainant within 30 days from today in case the complainant entrust the damaged mobile phone at the 1st opposite party’s shop.
The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation and 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount Rs.24,500/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2018.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
Sd/-Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim (President)
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - K.V.Sajeev (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Bill, dated 03/09/2017
Ext.A2 - Service request, dated 09/11/2017
Ext.A3 - Warranty Card
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
