In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.

Case No. CC/86/2021.

Date of filing: 27.06.2021.                                    Date of Final Order: 21.11.2024                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

1. Sri Moloy Sarkar,

Represent of his son Biplab Sarakar,

s/o Tarun Kumar Sarkar,

residing at Bandel South Naldanga,

P.O. Naldanga(South), P.S. Chinsura,

Dist. Hooghly-712123...........................……complainant

  vs 

1. The Samsung Service Centre,

     (Vaishno Telecom)

     Registered office address:- Bina Complex,

    366, Khalisani Garer Dhar,

     Ditch Road, P.O. & P.S. Chandannagore,

     Dist. Hooghly-712136.

2. The Regional Manager, Samsung, Kolkata Branch.

     10A, O.C. Ganguly Sarani.Sreepally,

     P.S. Bhowanipore, Kolkata-700020.

3. The Chief Manager,

     The Head Office of Samsung,

     Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

     Registered office:- 20^th to 24^th Floor,

     Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road,

     Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon,

    Haryana-122202.                         ...............................Opposite Parties.

Before:            Member:     Debasis Bhattacharya.

                          Member:     Babita Chaudhuri.

FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

Presented by:-

Babita Chaudhuri,  Member.

Brief fact of this case:- :-  This case has been filed U/s  35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that the complainant’s son had purchased a mobile phone (Samsung Galaxy) A50 white 64GB through online by Flip Cart invoice dated 30.04.2019 and complainant going to the op no.1 service center on 24.04.2021, firstly the op.1 check the said mobile and telling “Logo Hang Problem “after that the complainant agree for check the mobile and the op.no.1 has services said mobile on 24.04.2021 and the complainant paid Rs.1,149/-to the op.no.1 in the purpose of ‘Logo Hang Problem’. After taken the mobile from op.no.1.service center (Visnu Telecom)  on 24.04.2021,few hours later on the same day the complainant observed that his mobile phone arise the same problem of does not start the mobile phone. On that day complainant again going to the service center and lodge a complaint 2^nd time to the service center of the same issue on 24.04.2021 and after checking the said mobile by the member of op.no.1 also said to the complainant, found an another problem i.e. the mobile phone arise the dispute of the mother board but the op.no.1 does not telling to the complainant in the 1^st time when the complaint was lodge and continuously mislead by op.no.1 service center said that if the  dispute mother board will be repair then to be pay more than Rs. 9000/- and thus op.1 has totally damaged to the mobile phone of the complainant from the 1^st time was repairing to the op.1 . The complainant more times of visited to op.1 at Chandannagore  but every time returned back without any fruitful result.

                                      That due to the willful negligence, deficiency in service, unlawful activities on the op.1 , the complainant has suffered from financial loss,  mental agony and unnecessary  harassment and thereafter complainant sent a legal notice through his Ld. Advocate Mr. Utpal Dey to the op.1 on 27.04.2021 and after received said letter op no.1 can not replied of the legal notice.

                      In the circumstances it is through prayers:-

      An order directing the ops repair or replacement the mobile phone (Samsung Galaxy A50 white, 64GB)

An order directing the ops to pay Rs.10000/- towards compensation.

An order directing the ops to pay Rs.10000/- as cost of litigation.

Defense case:- The opposite parties have contested the case  by filing written version denying inter- alia all the allegation against them and op no.1 state that op2,3 being the manufacturer  is liable to give after sale service, through their service center in case of a manufacturing defect in the alleged products and the same is limited to repair and/or replacement of spare parts, subject to terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty cards. The op2 & 3 provides an one year warranty in case of the hand sets and the warranty covers  only the defects in the product arising out of manufacturing or faulty workmanship within the warranty period .The warranty of the product means that in case of any problem with the handset ,the handset will be repair  or its parts will be replaced as per warranty policy and the warranty of the handset is subject to condition mentioned in the warranty policy. It is further state that the complainant had lodge his first complaint after completion of two years, that means the complainant has using the handset without any disruption and if any manufacturing defect lying with the handset then since after purchase it is discover and not discover after prolong usage by the complainant and it is well-knowledge of the complainant that every android phone has warranty period after expiry of warranty period every service should be chargeable basis. The answering op1,2 does not provide free of cost repair and/or replacement of the spare parts in case of warranty expiry situation. It is to mention that the terms conditions mentioned in the warranty card need to be considered carefully while determining whether the said handset should be eligible for free of cost repair or not. It is stated and submitted that the handset is said to be OOW in two situations, viz i) when the warranty period gets expired and/or ii)when the handset get damaged due to external impact and fall within the “warranty void condition” as per the warranty policy. It is mentioned that without understanding the actual situation complainant has lodge the instant complaint and the complainant refused the estimation of replacement of the mother board and /or not ready for repair with cost anymore. Thus the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed in limini with cost.                  

Issues/points for consideration

On the basis of the pleading of the party, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties?
2. Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?

Evidence on record

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.

Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the complainant

Complainant filed written notes of argument. As per the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant is to be taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument as advanced by the ld. Advocate of the complainant heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyer of complainant has given emphasis on evidence and document produced by complainant.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of maintainability and/ or jurisdiction, cause of action and whether complainants is a consumer in the eye of law, are very vital issues and so these three points of consideration  are  clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.

   Regarding these three points of consideration it is very important to note that the opposite parties after receiving the notice have filed W/V in this case.  This District Commission after going through the materials of the case record finds that the complainants are residing at P.S. Chinsurah, District, Hooghly which is lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission. Moreover, this complaint case has been filed with a claim of below 50 lakhs and this matter is clearly indicating that this District Commission has also pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. Moreover, u/s 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, this District Commission has jurisdiction to try this case. On close examination of the pleadings of the complainants it also transpires that there is cause of action for filing this case by the complainant side against the opposite parties. Moreover after going through the provisions of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it appears that this case is maintainable and according to the provision of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Complainant is a consumer in the eye of law.

   All these factors are clearly depicting that this case is maintainable and complainant is consumer of the opposite parties and this District Commission has territorial/ pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case and there is also cause of action for filing this case by the complainant against the opposite parties. Thus, the above noted three points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant.

            The point no. 4 is related with the question as to whether there is any deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties or not? The point no. 5 is connected with the question as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not. These two points of consideration are interlinked and/ or interconnected with each other and for that reason these two points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.

            For the purpose of deciding the fate of these two points of consideration and for the interest of getting answers of the above noted questions, there is necessity of scanning the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant and written version filed by ops and there is also necessity making scrutiny of the documents filed by the complainant and ops  of this case.

        Peruse the case record it is found that the complainant lodge the complaint after expiry of the warranty period and in the present case there is nothing on record that there was any manufacturing defect in the dispute mobile phone. It is pertinent to mention that the service center of the opposite parties never denied repairing the mobile on chargeable basis. So the complainant has a right to get his mobile repaired on chargeable basis. In the complaint, the complainant has sought relief to replace or repair the mobile phone from the ops , but the complainant cannot entitle to get such relief as because on record, there is no expert report to show that the said mobile of the complainant has  any manufacturing defect, therefore,  this Commission is of the opinion that the said complaint is devoid of merit and deserved to be rejected.

In the result it is accordingly,  

ORDER

the complaint Case no.86 of 2021 be and the same is dismissed exparte.

No order is passed as to costs.

 Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

            The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.