Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

      President

1.    The complainant Sri. Lokesh resident of Mysore has filed this complaint against opposite party No.1 Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, New Delhi.  Opposite party No.2 Smart Cell Mobile, Hunsuru town.  Opposite party No.3 Samsung Service Centre, Mysuru praying to direct  the opposite parties to return service charges of Rs.3,643/- paid by the complainant and to pay Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony caused to complainant and to pass such other orders as this commission deems fit to grant.

2. The brief facts are that:-

     On 03.07.2019 the complainant had purchased Samsung A-20 mobile model No.SM-A205FZBGINS from opposite party No.2 for Rs.11,300/- and 6 months warranty extended thereon and it is further contended that the opposite party No.1 being the manufacturer manufactured the defective mobile hand set sold to complainant.  After purchase of the mobile handset within 2 days the display was out of order, on enquiry the opposite party No.2 told that display has been damaged and in spite of subsistence of warranty  period the opposite party No.2 refused to repair the mobile handset and asked the complainant to go to service centre of opposite party No.3.  But the opposite party No.3 though there was a warranty period it had charges Rs.3,643/- towards repair the mobile handset and it is further contended that after purchase of mobile handset 6 months warranty has been extended to get free service within the period of 6 months throughout India and issued warranty card, but the opposite party No.3 collected repair charges of Rs.3,643/- from the complainant.  The complainant handled the mobile handset with all due care and custody since it was purchased 2 days ago and mobile handset had inherent defects which results in causing mental agony and tension to the complainant during the period of warranty, it is the duty of the opposite parties to repair the mobile handset with free of cost, but they charged cost for repairing the mobile handset, hence it is alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Therefore, this complaint.

  3.         After registration of this complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to opposite parties.    In spite of service of notice upon opposite party No.2 it remained absent, hence opposite party No.2 was placed exparte.   In response to notice opposite party Nos.1 and 3 appeared before this commission through its counsel and have filed version contending that the complaint is baseless, devoid of merits and the same is liable to be rejected and the complaint has been filed with mischievous intention to enrich at the cost of opposite party No.1 and submits that  the allegations made in the complaint are not true and correct and further contends that the complainant multiple times specifically alleges that his mobile is defective and based on the said oral allegation now he seeking refund of repair charges with monetary compensation.  The opposite party submits that the alleged manufacturing defect cannot be determined on simplifier oral submissions of the complainant and needs proper analysis test report to confirm it.  The complainant failed to establish his allegation regarding existence of manufacturing defect in his mobile handset and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission decided in  CLASSIC AUTOMOBILES V/S LILA NAND MISHRA AND OTHERS wherein it is held that onus to prove manufacturing defect lies on the complainant and further held no expert evidence produced to prove manufacturing defect.  It is the duty of the complainant to place before this Forum the documentary evidence to establish his allegations, but the complainant not produced any warranty card to determine the warranty conditions and admits that the complainant had purchased Samsung mobile on 03.07.2019 from opposite party No.2 by paying a sum of Rs.11,300/- and denies the allegations that the opposite party No.1  manufactured and supplied defective mobile to him.  The complainant himself admits that he was informed by the dealer that his mobile LCD is damaged, therefore any damage to mobile LCD will happen as and when the mobile display is over pressed by the user or if the mobile is fallen on ground and further contended that the mobile LCD is an external part and it never damage automatically or due to defect in the mobile as per allegation and submits that any damage to mobile display will be happened only on account of human intervention or due to their negligence act only and not as alleged in the complaint and denied the allegation made in the complaint that in spite of existence of warranty period still opposite party No.3   has collected a sum of Rs.3,643/- towards repair charges and contended that mere visit to the service centre within warranty period does not empower the customer to get free of cost service unless their service request falls within the parameter of warranty terms and conditions.  The customer is eligible for FOC service only when their service request is in warranty service and not in out-warranty service.  In fact service job No.4286327346 clearly mentioned that mobile display is damaged, hence clearly mentioned out-warranty.  As such there was no objections from the complainant with regard to the contents written in the said job sheet.  Therefore, the service centre has collected Rs.3,643/- towards repair charges and the complainant has failed to establish the display is damaged due to existence of defects in his mobile handset and denied the allegation made in para 3 of the complaint with regard to allegation made by complainant that he suffered  physically and mentally due to supply of defective mobile handset and denied the allegation made in para 7 of the complaint that the defect mobile is supplied to complainant and he is unable to use it not even 3 days as well as collected certain amount towards repair charges within warranty period and further contended that on 10.07.2019 the service engineer noticed the display damage  and mentioned out of warranty and estimated repair charges for replacement of LCD and estimated cost of Rs.4,858/- and completed the repair work and collected Rs.3,643/- only. Due to negligence act of the complainant the display has been damaged which does not cover warranty service.  For all these reasons prays to dismiss the complaint.

4. The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief same was taken as PW.1 and got marked Exhibit P.1 to 4.On the other hand the opposite party No.1 has also filed affidavit by way of examination in chief same was taken as RW.1 and got marked Exhibit R.1 and R.3.

5. We have heard the arguments of both sides.  The counsel for opposite party No.1 has also filed written arguments.

6.  The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves the alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby he is entitle to the reliefs as sought for?
2.  What order?

7.      Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

       Point No.1 :- In the negative;

       Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.     Point No.1:-  It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased Samsung A-20 mobile handset bearing model No.SM-A205FZBGINS on 03.07.2019 for Rs.11,300/- from opposite party No.2 and 6 months warranty  has been extended to it.  The opposite party No.1 has admitted the purchase of mobile handset in question by the complainant on 03.07.2019 from opposite party No.2 for Rs.11,300/-.  It is the specific contention of the complainant that the opposite party No.1 who being the manufacturer of mobile handset purchased by the complainant  manufactured the defective mobile handset purchased by the complainant and within 2 days from the date of purchase of the mobile handset in question the complainant noticed defects in the mobile handset and the display of the mobile handset was out of order and he complained the same to opposite party No.2 in turn the opposite party No.2 asked the complainant to go to service centre of opposite party No.3, but the opposite party No.3 told the complainant display has been damaged and opposite party No.3 collected Rs.3,643/- towards repair charges and repaired it and handed over the same to complainant.  It is the further specific allegation of the complainant that 6 months warranty has been extended to his mobile handset  and during the period of warranty his mobile handset display gone out of order.  In spite of it, the opposite party No.3 collected repair charges of Rs.3,643/- from him which is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and further contended that during the period of warranty, service has been extended at free of cost at any place throughout India, but the opposite parties failed to repair the mobile handset at free of cost and they charged cost for it.  Therefore, it is alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  On the other hand, it is the specific and clear contention of the opposite parties that the complainant complained about the display problem of the mobile handset to opposite party No.2 from whom the complainant had purchased the mobile handset in question and the opposite party No.2 noticed damage has been caused to display of the mobile handset and asked the complainant to go to service centre of opposite party No.3, who also noticed damage has been caused to display of the handset and issued job card to the complainant mentioning display damage and after replacing the display LCD, opposite party No.3 collected Rs.3,643/- from the complainant, the complainant accepted the terms and conditions incorporated in the job sheet Exhibit P.2.  When he accepted the terms and conditions incorporated in Exhibit P.2 the job sheet, it is crystal clear that the complainant had admitted the display damaged to his mobile handset and given the same to opposite party No.3 to replace the damaged LCD.  The complainant got marked Exhibit P.1 tax invoice issued by opposite party No.1 for having sold the mobile handset in question to complainant for Rs.11,300/-.  Exhibit P.2 the acknowledgement of service request.  Exhibit P.3 the warranty card.  Exhibit P.4 the tax invoice issued by opposite party No.3 for having repaired and replaced the LCD display and collected Rs.3,643/-.  The opposite party has got marked Exhibit R.1 the warranty card and its terms and conditions.  Exhibit R.2 the acknowledgement service request mentioning the display damage and Exhibit R.3 the estimation of quotation issued to complainant mentioning the estimation charges of Rs.4,858/- to replace the LCD.

9. From the pleadings of the complaint it can be gathered that the complainant approached opposite party No.2 and complained about display problem in the mobile handset purchased by him from opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 noticed damage caused to the display and asked the complainant to approach the opposite party No.3 service centre.  Opposite party No.3 also noticed damage caused to display of the mobile handset and the opposite party No.3 issued Exhibit P.2 the quotation for repair of the LCD display and collected Rs.3,643/- from the complainant towards replacing of the LCD display.  The complainant after accepting the terms and conditions of job card has subscribed his signature thereon.  So, it is crystal clear that the complainant was very well knowing the damage causing to mobile handset.  In spite of it, the complainant complained that the opposite party No.1 manufactured the defective mobile handset which was sold to him and the opposite party No.2 and 3 did not repair the handset with free of cost in spite of existence of warranty period.  Therefore, it was the allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties have adopted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

10. Opposite party No.1 in its written version has clearly contended that the onus of proving the defects in the mobile handset is upon the complainant by producing the expert opinion, merely because of complaining that mobile handset purchased by the complainant had inherent defects is not a proof and opposite party No.1 has relied upon the decision of Hon’be NCDRC delivered in CLASSIC AUTOMOBILES V/S LILA NAND MISHRA AND OTHERS wherein it is held that onus to prove manufacturing defect lies on the complainant and further held No expert evidence produced to prove manufacturing defect and also relied upon another decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 1(2010) CPJ 235 (NC) wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC has held that Onus to prove manufacturing defect lies on complainant.  No expert evidence produced to prove manufacturing defect in vehicle/alleged defects cannot termed as manufacturing defect.  So from the afore cited decision of NCDRC, it is crystal clear that the complainant alleges  manufacturing defects in the mobile handset purchased by him from opposite party No.2 manufactured by opposite party No.1 in such event,  the Onus of proving the manufacturing defects in the mobile handset is upon the complainant by producing necessary documents as such expert evidence or expert opinion etc.,.  Here in the present case on hand, the complainant has failed to produce any expert opinion nor led the expert evidence to prove that the mobile handset purchased by him from opposite party No.2 manufactured by opposite party No.1 having inherent manufacturing defects.  Therefore, at the outset itself the complainant has failed to prove the manufacturing defects found in the mobile handset purchased by him manufactured by opposite party No.1 and from the pleadings and documentary evidence produced by the complainant such as acknowledgement of  the service request/job card issued by opposite party No.3.  It is crystal clear that the complainant after accepting the terms and conditions incorporated in the Exhibit P.2 the job card and put his signature thereon and thereby he admitted the display damage caused to his mobile handset, if really the mobile handset purchased by him had inherent defects in its mobile handset he could have brought the same to the notice of opposite parties and he could have got the expert opinion in this regard, but he failed to get the expert opinion about the manufacturing defects in the mobile handset purchased by him and the complainant had readily accepted to pay the service charges to replace the display damage/LCD display and got it replaced from opposite party No.3, under such circumstances it is crystal clear that the complainant was very much aware of damage caused to LCD display of the mobile handset and he paid service charges of Rs.3,643/- to opposite party No.3 for replacement of the LCD display and got it replaced.  Therefore, we are of the considered view that the complainant has filed to prove the alleged manufacturing defects in the mobile handset in question and the damage caused to display of his mobile handset might be due to negligent act  and mishandling on the part of complainant.  If any damage caused to the display the warranty/guarantee does not cover as per the terms and conditions of warranty.  Therefore, the complainant cannot contend that the opposite parties have failed to repair the mobile handset with free of cost during the period of warranty.  Therefore, we are of considered view that the complainant has failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  Hence,  we answer point No.1 in the negative.

11.   Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1.  The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. 
2.  No order as to cost.
3.  Furnish the copy of order to both the parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 10^th    January, 2023)