Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                    The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

                    2. The case of the complainant is as follows.  The complainant purchased a Samsung Mobile Phone Model SM-J500F with Serial Number RZ8GCODW83W for an amount of Rs. 12,000/- from the 1^st opposite party on 27/12/2015.  On 24/08/2016 the phone became functionless so that the complainant handed over it to 2^nd opposite party the authorized service center for necessary repairment.  On 10/09/2016 the 2^nd opposite party returned the phone to the complainant after repairment.  It is contended that the 2^nd opposite party charged Rs. 7,000/- for its repairment and he informed the complainant that the circuit board of the phone had replaced for curing the defect.  Again the 2^nd opposite party’s service engineer reported that there is no defect for the circuit board on the display and the touch screen were defective and directed to pay Rs. 4,500/- for its redressal.  The complainant was not amenable for it and heat exchange of words happened between the parties.  It is contended that the opposite parties are committed grave deficiency in service with regard to the maintenance of the phone of redressal of the complainant’s complaint for which they are liable to the complainant.  Hence this case for the replace of the phone or the refund of the amount of Rs. 12,000/-, compensation, cost, etc, etc.

                   3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite party for their appearance. All the opposite parties entered appearance and filed separate version. The 1^st opposite party contended that this case is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  It is admitted that he sold the said phone to the complainant and also contended that due to the misuse of the phone all the defects are occur for which he is not at all liable to the complainant.  It is contended that the defect occurred to the phone as a result of fall of the phone into the water for which this opposite party is not at all liable to redress the grievances.  Hence this opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

                  4. The 2^nd opposite party also filed a version which is as follows.  According to him the complainant handed over the said phone for repair to his shop and find that the defect occurred as a result of ‘water damage’.  It is also contended that the phone was totally dead when it entrusted for repairment and also found water damage to the ‘board & display’ portion of the phone.  It is also stated that 2^nd opposite party clear the defect seen in the ‘board’ of the phone and informed him that the work for touch screen not comes under the warranty since it is a matter of water damage.  He categorically stated that he is not ready to do the work of the phone on warrantee base because the defect cause due to water damage.

                     5. The 3^rd opposite party also filed their version as follow.  According to 3^rd opposite party the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  It is admitted that the complainant purchased the phone as pleaded in the complaint and 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the phone.  It is contented that after checking it was found that the defect occurred to the phone due to water logue issue.  The said defect not comes under warranty and as such the expenses have to be met by the complainant.  According to this opposite party they did not commit any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  Therefore this opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

6. On the basis of the complaint, version of 1^st to 3^rd opposite party and records before us, this Forum framed the following issues for consideration.    

1.  Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
2.  Whether the opposite parties are committed any deficiency

     in service as alleged by the complainant?

3.  Regarding relief and costs?

7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his examination and examined him as PW1.  Through PW1 Ext. A1 and Ext. A3 were also marked Ext. A1 is the cash bill dated:27/12/2015.  Ext. A2 is the cash receipt dated:10/09/2016.  Ext. A3 is the warranty card issued by 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  On the other side the Manager of 2^nd opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and marked Ext. B1 to B3.  It is seen that Ext. B1 and Ext. A2 are one and same.  Ext. B2 is also marked through DW1.  Ext. B2 is the copy of the warranty card.  Ext. B2 and B3 are also one and same.  Through PW1 Ext. B3 the copy of the Acknowledgment service request was also marked.  The marking of the said document was opposed by the counsel of the complainant hence it is marked as subject to proof.  After the closure of evidence we heard both sides. 
8. Point No.1:- The 1^st and 3^rd opposite party in this case seriously contended that the case is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  When we go into the evidence of this case it is to see that the complainant he who purchased a Mobile Phone by paying Rs. 12,000/- to 1^st opposite party and also comes out in evidence that the defect of the phone occurred within the warranty period.  Therefore we can safely come to a conclusion that the complainant is the consumer of 1^st opposite party and the opposite parties are service providers of the complainant.
9. Point No.2&3:- For the sake or convenience we would like to consider point 2 and 3 together.   In the instant case it is to evident to see that the complainant proved that he purchased the said phone from 1^st opposite party by paying Rs. 12,000/- and the said phone was entrusted to 2^nd opposite party for repairment.  As per Ext. A1 & A2 it is proved that the complainant paid a consideration of Rs. 12,000/- for the phone on 27/12/2015 and as per Ext. A2 it is proved that the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 3,050/- to 2^nd opposite party as service charge of the said phone.  When we look into Ext. A2 we can see that OCTA LCD equipment is requested for repairment of the phone for a cost of Rs. 4445/-.  It is also reported that the phone was dead at the time of entrustment and in bracket ‘water damage’ is mentioned. Ext. A3 is the warranty card issued by 1^st opposite party to the complainant at the time of its purchase.  When the complainant is examined as PW1 he produced the Mobile Phone before the Forum and it was marked as MO1, along with Ext. A1 to A3.  When we compare Ext. B1 with Ext. A2 as discussed earlier it is one and same.  Likewise Ext. B2 and Ext. A6 are also found one and same.  It is to be noted that though the opposite party produced and marked Ext. B3 the acknowledgment of service request the counsel for the complainant opposed the marking of document on ground that it has not mentioned in the proof affidavit and the copy of the said document has not been served to the complainant prior to its production. So it is marked as ‘subject proof’.  The opposite party did not produce any original document to substantiate Ext. B3 as a proof.  When the 1^st to 3^rd opposite party cross-examined PW1 all the opposite parties suggested PW1 to obtain an answer of ‘water logging’ of his phone.  But his answers are against their suggestion.  The PW1 categorically denied all kinds of suggestion regarding the chance of ‘’water logging’.  We do admit that in Ext. A2 there is a mentioning of water damage in the said receipt.  In order to take a decision with regard to this aspect the point to be considered is whether the opposite parties adduced any positive evidence with regard to water logging.  It is to be noted that the 2^nd opposite party had not a consistent case with regard to the defect of the phone.  In the 1^st instant 2^nd opposite party informed that ‘circuit board’ of the phone was damaged.  Subsequently it is informed that the ‘display or touch screen’ are in trouble and there is no defect for the circuit board.  The inconsistent plea of the 2^nd opposite party can also be treated as a deficiency in service.  If the opposite party has a genuine contention of ‘water logging’ of the phone what prevented them to produce an expert opinion with regard to this aspect by examining the phone.  If the complaint has a genuine case of water logging it is the duty of the 2^nd opposite party to adduce a positive evidence of water logging to substantiate their contention.  If so, we can come to a conclusion that the defect of the phone happened within the warranty period the opposite parties are liable to the complainant.   It is also to be seen that no opposite parties have a case to the effect that the time of incident was not in the warranty period.  On the basis of the above discussion we would like to find that the complaint is allowable and also found that 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the phone and 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are the dealers and service person of 1^st opposite party.  Therefore 1^st to 3^rd opposite party are jointly and severely liable to complainant.  Hence Point No. 2 & 3 are also found in favour of the complainant. 
10. In the result we pass the following orders.

1. The 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are hereby directed to replace the Mobile Phone of the complainant with a new one with same kind of specifications within one month of receipt of this order.  If fails opposite parties are liable to pay price of the phone Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order onwards.  At the time of the compliance of the 1^st relief the complainant is liable to return the old phone to the opposite parties concerned. 
2. A compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and a cost of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) are also allowed to the complainant from the opposite parties with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order onwards.        

  Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18^th day of June, 2018.

                                                                                (Sd/-)

                                                            P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                  (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)          : (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  : Rajesh.G

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 : Cash bill dated:27/12/2015. 

A2 : Cash receipt dated:10/09/2016. 

A3 : Warranty card issued by 1^st opposite party to the complainant. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: 

DW1: Neethu Sivan

DW2: Jyothish N Krishnan

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:        (By Order)

B1: Cash Receipt dated: 10/09/2016.

B2: The copy of the warranty card.

B3: Acknowledgment service request was also marked.

MO1: Mobile Phone      

                                                                                               (By Order)

       Copy to:- (1) Rajesh G,

                           Paippattu House, Iravon Muri,

        Iravon Village, Konni Taluk,

        Iravon P.O, Pin – 689691.

2. The Proprietor,

Persian Palace-Complete Duty Paid Shoppie & Gift Palace,

Market Jn, Konni,  Konni P.O, Pin – 689 691.

3. The Manager, Online Services,

Sumsang Authorized Service Centre,

SNDP Building, 1^st Floor, Near Collectorate,

Pathanamthitta.

4. Managing Director,

Sumsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

A-25, Ground Floor,

Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

New Delhi – 110 044.

5. The Stock File.