BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 459/2014
Sri. B.Jagadish, No.44,
Magadi Main Road,
Srinivasapura, Pipeline Road,
2nd Main Road, Gollarahatti,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Bangalore – 560 091.
(By Sri. K.A.Patil, Adv.,)
……….Appellants.
-Versus-
1. Sri. Jinnani Times
Samsung Smart Phone Café,
No.4/3, OTC Road,
Near Luciya, Bangalore.
2. Importer & Seller
Samsung India Electronic
Private Limited, A-25,
Basement Floor, Front Tower,
Mohan Co-Operative
Industrial Estate,
New Delhi-110 004.
(R1 served – absent)
(R2 by Sri. Ramesh, Adv.,)
……….Respondents
: O R D E R :
BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the order dated:09.12.2013 passed by I Addl. District Consumer Commission, Bangalore in C.C.No.1160/2013.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant purchased one Samsung Galaxy B-5512 smart phone for Rs.9,600/- on 28/02/2012 and thereafter within one month, he noticed problem in the handset and therefore approached Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.1 informed him that minor problem was there and same is repaired. After three months, the complainant noticed the same problem and handed over the same to Opposite Party No.1 on 22/06/2012 and the Opposite Party repaired the same since there is a connector problem and again on 11/07/2012 the Opposite Party repaired the handset due to a problem in the mother board, but the handset was not in a good condition.
2(a) It is further contended that on 27/12/2012 the complainant approached the said centre for repair, but the Opposite Party instead of repairing the mobile gave standby mobile and till the said hand set was in the custody of Opposite Party only and warranty period of the said hand set was expired on 28/02/2013. Hence, due to the act of the Opposite Parties, the complainant suffered lot of mental agony and without any alternative the complainant filed the complaint before the District Commission. The earlier complaint filed by the complainant on the same cause of action came to be dismissed as the complainant has not made the manufacturer or dealer as parties to the complaint.
3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party No.1 remained absent and hence he was placed Ex-parte. The Opposite Party No.2 appeared before the District commission and filed the version, wherein he contended that the complainant had filed a complaint in C.C.No.115/2013 before the District Commission and same was dismissed on 15/06/2013 on merits. Further, the Opposite Party No.2 denies that the complainant handset had not a problem within a period of one month from the date of its purchase and he has not handed over the handset to the service centre on 22/06/2012 and 11/07/2012. It is further contended that the complainant visited the service centre only on 27/12/2012 for minor repair and it was rectified free of cost and thereafter the complainant has not shown any inclination to collect the handset from Opposite Party by returning the standby handset. The complainant had not visited the service centre on 22/06/2012 and 11/07/2012 and in that regard he has not produced any documents to show that he has approached the service centre on those days. In spite of several requests made by this Opposite Party, the complainant did not receive the handset and stated that he will meet in the Consumer Court. The warrant has expired long back, however the complainant with a mala-fide intention has not collected the handset. Hence, submits there is no deficiency of service on their side and prays to dismiss the complaint.
4. After trial, Bangalore Urban I Additional District Consumer Commission, Bangalore dismissed the complaint.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/complainant preferred this appeal on various grounds.
6. We have heard the arguments from both parties.
7. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission and materials on record, we noticed that the complainant was purchased Samsung Galaxy B-5512 mobile handset for Rs.9,600/- from Opposite Party No.1. It is also undisputed fact that the earlier complaint filed by the complainant in C.C.No.115/2013 before the District Commission and same was dismissed by the District Commission on 15.06.2013 on merits.
8. Now the point for our consideration is that whether this complaint is hit by doctrine of res-judicata?
9. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, the earlier complaint of the complainant was dismissed by the District Commission because the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party in the earlier complaint and also he has not made the manufacturer and dealer as a party to the proceedings. In the present complaint, the complainant has alleged that he has approached to the service centre within one month after purchasing the mobile handset and subsequently approached on 22/06/2012, 11/07/2012 and 27/12/2012 for minor issues. Every time, the service centre rectified the issue and returned the same handset to the complainant. On 27/12/2012 the complainant approached the service centre for repair and the service centre of Opposite Party gave standby mobile to the complainant instead of repairing the mobile handset of the complainant. However, the Opposite Party contended that the complainant has approached only on 27/12/2012 after 10 months of purchasing of the mobile handset for the first time for minor issue and after rectifying the defect in the handset, the complainant has not shown any inclination to collect his mobile handset in spite of repeated requests.
10. Perused the service request date:27.12.2012, it is evident that the Opposite Party has made several communication with complainant to receive the mobile handset, however, the appellant has not collected his mobile handset. Moreover, if there is any defect in the mobile handset within the warranty period, the company is to duty bound to repair the same. The warranty is limited to repair of all kinds and change of alternative components if any. However, warranty do not extends to complete replacement of the mobile handset if there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset and same has been proved by the complainant, then only it is possible to replace the complete mobile handset. In the present case, after rectifying the issue, the service centre has called the complainant many times to collect the repaired mobile, but the complainant has not approached the service center to collect his mobile handset. Furthermore, if the complainant has approached several times to the service centre of the Opposite Parties, he has not produced any job sheet of the service centre to establish his case except job sheet dated:28/12/2012. Furthermore, the earlier complaint was decided by the District Commission on merits. Therefore, if again same party approached the same court for the adjudication for same issue, the complaint will be struck by the law of res-judicata. Hence, considering the facts, discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Hence, appeal fails. Therefore, we proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
The impugned order dated:09/12/2013 passed by the Bangalore Urban I Additional District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.1160/2013 is hereby confirmed.
Return the LCR forthwith to the concerned District Commission.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
