D.O.F : 04/08/2021
D.O.O : 21/06/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.129/2021
Dated this, the 21st day of June 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Somalatha K.
W/o Madhusoodhanan P.
Thiruvathira, Pookkalam.
Periya P O
Kasaragod.
(adv: Regha Narayanan & Nazeema) : Complainant
And
- Todays Mobile shop
Girija Complex
Kanhangad.
- The Manager
Samsung India Electronics Ltd
20-24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre
Golf Course Road, Sector-43
DLF Ph-V, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122202.
(Adv: C V Narayanan)
- The Manager
Samsung SR Communication
Near BSNL Exchange
LIC Junction, Payyannur, Kannur. : Opposite Parties
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that, she purchased a Samsung S 20 FE bearing IMEI 1:358818746167421 mobile phone on 25/2/2021 for Rs. 41,000/- out of which Rs. 20,000/- is given to opposite party No.1 and for the remaining amount opposite party no. 1 arranged loan from Bajaj Finance. The EMI per month was Rs. 2,084/-. The complainant was promptly remitting instalments. The said phone was purchased for her daughter for attending her online classes during Covid-19 pandemic. From the beginning itself, it is noticed that the mobile phone started getting over heated. Immediately it is informed to opposite party no.1 over phone. They said that it may be because of some software updating issue. Believing these words of opposite party No.1, complainant’s daughter went to her college at Manipal, Udupi on 27/02/2021 with the phone. But she could not use it, due to overheating, it is unable to hold the phone. The phone was purchased for attending online classes for the complainant’s daughter. She is doing her Health Information Management at Kasturba Medical College, Manipal. She came back from Manipal and they went to opposite party No.1 and handed over the mobile to the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 retained the mobile under the pretex to cure the defects and after the updating returned it on the next day stating that the problem is solved. But same problem persisted. Due to overheating, it was unable to use. The same was informed to opposite party no.1 and demanded for replacement. The opposite party No.1 again had sent the said mobile to opposite party No.2 for checking and replacement. The opposite party No.2 did not replaced it instead returned it stating that the issue was cured. Inspite of repeated requests and demand, the phone was not replaced. The mobile was serviced from 3 to 4 times by the opposite party No.1 & 2. But the problem was not rectified. The said phone was lastly given to opposite party No.1 on 28/04/2021 and the same was returned in the month of July. The problem persisted and the phone was not receiving any signal, thus the phone became useless. Due to the continuous complaint of the phone, the studies of the complainant’s daughter was hindered and she had suffered a lot. The opposite party No.1 has not even bothered to handover the warranty card to the complainant. The complainant alleges that the opposite party had supplied a mobile having manufacturing defect and the said act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for which opposite parties are bound to compensate the complainant. Due to the negligent attitude of opposite parties, the complainant was constrained to purchase another phone for her daughter for attending online classes.
The opposite party No.2 filed version denying all allegations contained in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted here under. That the complaint is fault, false and malicious and has been filed with a malafide intent. The averments made there in are based on illegal, baseless, unwarranted and unsound allegations. If any manufacturing defect in the product is construed from the complaint it is pertinent to mention here and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. The complainant has not filed any expert opinion as required under section 13 (1C) of the consumer Protection Act 1986. It is submitted that the warranty does not cover physical damage or misuse. The opposite party further submits that they are highly reputed and large multinational company operative in several countries across the world and one of the leading brands in manufacturing and marketing of electronic and home appliances. The intend of the respondent is to serve its customers. In case any after sale service/quality issue is brought to the notice of the respondents, the same is immediately corrected as matter of priority. The complainant has never approached the service center, instead entrusted the defective phone directly to the dealer after 2 months of usage. The service center updated the software and returned the handset to the dealer. Opposite party further states that they are still ready to provide services to the complainant as per conditions of warranty. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the document produced is marked as Ext. A1. The issues raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party as alleged in the complaint?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
All issues can be discussed together. The case of the complainant is that, she purchased a Samsung S20 FE bearing IMEI 1:358818746167421 mobile phone on 25/2/2021 for her daughter to attend online classes . The complainant had paid Rs. 20,000/- as cash and for the remaining amount, to be paid by EMI to Bajaj Finance with interest and the EMI per month was Rs. 2084/-. The complainant was promptly remitting the loan amount. The receipt issued by opposite party for the purchase of the phone is marked as Ext. A1. From the beginning itself, the mobile phone started getting over heated. On noticing this, it is informed to opposite party No.1 over phone. The opposite party informed that it is because of some software updating issue. The phone was purchased for the complainant’s daughter to attend online classes during covid period. Believing the words of opposite party No.1, the complainant’s daughter went to her college at Manipal on 27/2/2021 with the phone, but due to over heating she could not use it. Complainant’s daughter is doing Health Information Management course at Kasthurba Medical College at Manipal. She came back from Manipal to cure the defect of the phone. When they approached opposite party No. 1, they retained the mobile under the pretex to cure the defect and after updating, it is returned. Thus the next day the phone was returned stating that the problem was solved. Even after updation also, the same problem persisted. Again it is informed to opposite party No.1 and demanded for replacement. The opposite party No.1 handed over the mobile to opposite party No.2 for checking and replacement. Opposite party No. 2 did not replaced the mobile but instead repaired it stating that some software issues and handed back the same phone. Again, the same problem repeated. And the complainant’s daughter was unable to use the phone due to the same issues. The allegation of the complainant is that, the opposite party had given a defective mobile to the complainant and thus cheated her. Even after repeated complaints also, the opposite party failed to provide proper after sale service to them. Even after repeated requests from the complainant, neither replacement is allowed by opposite party nor cured the defects.
After filing the version, the opposite party not turned up to disprove the case of the complainant. Even though amble opportunities are given to adduce evidence to opposite party, they failed to adduce evidence. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, the complainant’s case stands proved. The complainant purchased a phone for her daughter’s online class purposes. Even after spending Rs. 41,000/- for the phone, she could not use the phone properly and defect free.
This commission carefully gone through the affidavit and document produced by the complainant. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, there is serious deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in not providing proper after sale service to the complainant. The opposite party was also failed to provide replacement of the phone amounts to unfair trade practice which caused huge monitory loss and mental agony to the complainant’s family. The complainant was constrained to purchase another mobile phone for her daughter to attend online classes. Both opposite parties are liable to compensate the loss and agony undergone by the complainant.
The complainant is seeking a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 7,000/- towards interest on EMI. The price of the phone was Rs. 41,000/- and the complainant is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and cost of litigation.
Therefore, the complaint is partly allowed directing opposite parties to refund Rs. 41,000/- (Rupees Forty One thousand only) with interest 8% per annum with a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) along with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss of the complainant.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – receipt issued by opposite party
Witness cross-examined
PW1 – Somalatha K.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
