By Sri. MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. On 27/08/2020 the complainant had approached the first opposite party for purchasing a mobile phone. The first opposite party is the seller and the third opposite party is the manufacturer. The complainant had purchased mobile phone from the first opposite party after making payment of Rs. 23,999/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only). The second opposite party is the authorised service centre of the third opposite party. From the very inception, at the shop of the first opposite party itself, phone started function slowly at the first opposite party directed the complainant to charge the phone for four hours of time and insert Sim card. Accordingly, the phone was charged for required time, but it functioned very slowly and phone was in a heated condition. Moreover there was no auto changing function of 3G to 4G in the phone and changing should be done manually. Then the complainant contacted the first opposite party and entrusted it for repair work. In the very next day, the first opposite party had handed over the phone stating that condition of the phone was normal. But defects were continued, thus first opposite party directed the complainant to contact the second opposite party. Later the complainant contacted the second opposite party and changed PC Board of the phone on advice. The second opposite party told that slowness in functions of the phone was due to software issue and cannot be repaired. The information received from the second opposite party was shocking and agonising the complainant. It is averred that phone was purchased by using hard earned money. It is further averred that the complainant had also borrowed money from the local money lender for purchasing the phone. It is averred that phone became useless. It is alleged that the phone suffered inherent manufacturing defect. The phone is heating up, charge is not lasting and phone is in switched off condition even in network coverage. The second opposite party failed to rectify the defects. The acts of the opposite parties are amounted to deficiency in service. So the complainant prayed for a direction to opposite parties to refund Rs. 23,999/- with 12% interest from the date of purchase of the phone and to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant. The complainant also prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay cost of the proceedings.
2. The complaint is admitted and issued notice to the opposite parties. The first and second opposite parties had received notices on 08/09/2021 but did not file their version. So the Commission set them exparte. The Third opposite party appeared and filed version.
3. The third opposite party is a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 and represented by its General Manager, Customer satisfaction. The third opposite party denied allegations of the complainant. It is contended that the company is providing good service to its customers including the complainant. The complainant did not prove manufacturing defect to the product and the complainant has failed to produce proper lab report to that effect. The complainant has failed to explain in what manner computation of compensation claimed has been made in the complaint. So the opposite party alleged that the complainant is trying to make unfair advantage. The third opposite party admitted purchase of the phone as averred in the complaint. It is contended that there was no defect tos the phone immediately after purchase as alleged in the complaint. The third opposite party denied allegations of slow starting up and heating to the phone as false. Moreover the third opposite party also denied averment of repair work carried out by the first opposite party. The third opposite party denied the averment of the complainant that the second opposite party opined of software issue to the phone as false. It is contended that the third opposite party did not know the way is which the complainant had secured money for purchasing phone. The complainant is not entitled for any relief was claimed in the complaint. It is stated that after six months of time from the date of purchase, the complainant had bought the phone to the second opposite party with issue of no network and heating. In the examination it is found that the mother board was defective. So mother board was replaced with free of cost as per terms and conditions of warranty and phone was returned with good satisfaction. After two months of time the complainant again approached the second opposite party with issues of network and heating. But in the examination no defect was found hence phone returned to the complainant. After the said incident, the complainant did not make any complaints. There is no deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties. It is contended that the second opposite party was ready to provide good service within the scope of warranty. There is no manufacturing defect to the phone. So the third opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant and the third opposite party have filed affidavits in lieu of evidence. The documents produced by the complainant is marked as Ext. A1 and Ext. A2 document. Ext. A1 document is the copy of invoice dated 27/08/2020 showing payment of Rs. 23,999/- as cost of the phone. Ext. A2 document is the copy of acknowledgement of service dated 17/08/2021 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant showing details of service availed by the complainant in connection with the complaints of the phone. The documents produced by the third opposite party is marked as Ext.B1 to Ext.B3 documents. Ext. B1 document is the copy of extracts of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of Samsung India Electronics appointing Mr. Sandeep Sahijwani of Customer Satisfaction Department as power of attorney holder to conduct the case. Ext. B2 document is the copy of job card dated 17/08/2021 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant. Ext. B3 document is the copy of warranty card of the phone purchased by the complainant.
5. Heard both sides in detail. Perused documents and affidavits availed for scrutiny. There was no evidence available from the side of the first and second opposite parties as they remained exparte in the proceedings. The following points are considered by the Commission to adjudicate the matter:-
- Whether the acts of the opposite parties are amounted to deficiency in service?
- Relief and cost?
6.Point No.(i) and (ii):-
It is averred by the complainant that he had purchased a mobile phone for Rs. 23,999/- from the first opposite party on 27/08/2020. The phone was manufactured by the third opposite party and second opposite party is the service centre. It is alleged that from the very first day of its purchase, phone started its functioning very slowly and it was heated up. As per direction of the first opposite party, the complainant had charged the phone for four hours inserting Sim card. But it is argued by the complainant that defects were continued. There was no function of auto change from 3G to 4G. Again the complainant contacted the first opposite party for rectification work, but failed to repair the defects. Subsequently the complainant contacted the second opposite party on the basis of advice given by the first opposite party. It is argued that the second opposite party had replaced PC Board of the phone and informed him that there was software issue to the phone and same cannot be rectified. It is further alleged that the phone was also got defect of becoming switched off even in network coverage area. So it is argued that phone has suffered inherent manufacturing defect.It is also argued that the opposite parties are failed rectify the defects of the phone even though it was submitted for repair works for many times. The complainant has produced copy of acknowledgement of service issued by the second opposite party and marked it as Ext.A2 document.
7. On the other hand the third opposite party argued that there was no manufacturing defect to the product. After six months of time from the date of purchase, the complainant had approached the second opposite party with issues of heating and network. It is further argued that the second opposite party had examined the product, consequently motherboard was replaced with free of cost as it was occurred during validity of warranty period. The third opposite party has produced copy of warranty card and it is marked as Ext.B3 document. It is further argued by the third opposite party that the complainant had again approached the second opposite party after two months of time with complaints, but the second opposite party could not find any defects to the phone. It is also argued that the complainant did not bring any documents before the Commission to the prove manufacturing defects of the product.
8. In the analysis of evidence, it can be find that both parties admitted the date of purchase of the product as on 27/08/2020 and Rs. 23,999/- was remitted by the complainant as cost of the product. So there is no dispute over Ext. A1 document. According to the contentions of the third opposite party, defect was found only after six months of time from the date of purchase and second opposite party replaced mother board of the phone with free of cost as per terms and conditions of the warranty. It is pleaded in the complaint that one year warranty was provided to the product by the third opposite party. Ext.B3 document produced by the third opposite party would also support after two months of time pleadings of the complainant. It is also admitted by the third opposite party that after two months of time the complainant had again approached the second opposite party with issues of heating and no network. According to the third opposite party no defect was found on it. But the third opposite party did not adduce evidence to prove that phone was in working condition. The complainant has averred that right from the beginning of purchase of phone, defects are found on it. It is pleaded by the complainant that complaints of slowness and heating occurred to the phone on the very first day of purchase and remedial measures were taken on the basis of advice given by the first opposite party, but all attempts were failed. The Commission consider that there is no evidence available from the side of the first opposite party to rebut the pleadings in the complaint as first opposite party remained exparte. The contentions of the third opposite party cannot be taken into account to rebut the pleadings of the complainant in total. Moreover it has also come out in the evidence that even after replacement of mother board, defects were continued to the phone. The Commission also gone through Ext. A2 document as well as Ext.B2 document and find that the phone has suffered defects as pleaded by the complainant. The contents of Ext. A2 and Ext. B2 documents are one and same and it would show that the complainant had approached the second opposite party with complaints of network low, heating and short battery life and same are within warranty period. Ext. A2 document was issued on 17/8/2021 i.e., within warranty period. The Commission find that even after replacement of mother board, the defects were continued and Ext. A2 document prove the pleadings of the complainant. So the Commission find that there is no merit in the contention of the third opposite party that lab report was not available before the Commission to prove the manufacturing defects. The Commission also consider the fact that there is no ground to disbelieve Ext. A2 document as it was issued by the second opposite party, who is none other than the service centre of the third opposite party. Moreover it has also come out in evidence that the second opposite party informed the complainant that the phone had suffered with software issue and same cannot repaired. There is no evidence available before the Commission to show that the first and second opposite parties had taken proper steps to address the grievance of the complainant. The Commission consider that it was inevitable on the part of the first and second opposite parties to act correctly and genuinely for availing remedial measures to the complainant other than giving advice or information. In the conclusion, the Commission find that the acts of the opposite are amounted to deficiency in service towards the complainant. It is find that the acts of the opposite parties have caused mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant. So all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The Commission consider that Rs.10,000/- would be a sufficient amount as compensation to the complainant. The Commission find that the subject phone has suffered inherent manufacturing defect as it became useless to the complainant. So the opposite parties are liable replace the phone with same model and description or to refund the cost of the phone paid as per Ext.A1 document. Moreover the opposite parties are also liable to pay Rs. 5000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. The Commission find that the complainant has successfully proved his case hence complaint is allowed in the following manner:-
- The opposite parties are directed to replace the defective phone with a new one in the same description or to refund the amount of Rs. 23,999/-(Rupees Twenty three thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) to the complainant as cost of the phone. The complainant also directed to hand over defective phone to the opposite parties in such condition as it was availed with the complainant.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and inconvenience caused due to the deficient acts of the opposite parties.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of order otherwise entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till the date of its realisation.
Dated this 27th day of February, 2024.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext. A1 & A2.
Ext. A1: Document is the copy of invoice dated 27/08/2020 showing payment of Rs.
23,999/- as cost of the phone.
Ext. A2: Document is the copy of acknowledgement of service dated 17/08/2021
issued by the second opposite party to the complainant showing details of
service availed by the complainant in connection with the complaints of the
phone.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B3
Ext. B1 : Document is the copy of extracts of the resolution passed by the Board of
Directors of Samsung India Electronics appointing Mr. Sandeep Sahijwani of
customer satisfaction department as power of attorney holder to conduct
the case.
Ext. B2: Document is the copy of job card dated 17/08/2021 issued by the second
opposite party to the complainant.
Ext. B3: Document is the copy of warranty card of the phone purchased by the
complainant.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
