THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 23^rd day of April 2022

                             Filed on: 15/12/2020

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                        Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                               Member

CC.No.412/2020

COMPLAINANT

Biju.N.Soman, Niravathu House, Nadukkara, Vazhakkulam.P.O, Muvattupuzha – 686 670.

 (Rep. by Adv.Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. M/s.Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd., 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf

    Course Road, Sector – 43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 202. Represented by

    its Managing Director.

      (Rep. by Advs.Arun Das & Abheek Saha, KHCAA Chamber No.450, Near High

        Court of Kerala, Ernakulam)

2. M/s.My G, My gen Digital Hub, Janatha buildings, Kacherithazham, Muvattupuzha –

    686 661.  Represented by its Managing Director.

R

O R D E R

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Brief facts of this complaint is as stated below:

            The complainant had purchased a A207 GALAXY A20 S 3GB 32 GB blue Samsung mobile(3522233114733968) from the 2^nd opposite party for Rs.11,999/- on 11/12/2019.  The 2^nd opposite party had also provided good protection plus certificate for coverage for accidental physical damage by collecting Rs.1,390/-.  The mobile hand set fell down in March 2020.  The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for display change on 21/10/2020.  The 2^nd opposite party collected Rs.600/- towards the charges for the display change.  But instead of effecting the display change the 2^nd opposite party informed that the panel suffered damage and offered refund of Rs.5,400/- only.  The complainant submits that he is entitled to get the price of the handset as per the good protection coverage certificate issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant submits that the reluctance to refund the entire price of the phone amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complainant approached the Commission seeking direction against the opposite party to refund the price of the mobile phone along with 12% interest and also sought for compensation and cost of proceedings from the opposite party.

Notice

On taking the case, notices were issued to both opposite parties.  The 1^st opposite party, manufacturer appeared and filed their version.  The 2^nd opposite party, dealer, despite acceptance of notice remain absent, and consequently set Ex-parte.

Version of 1^st opposite party

            The present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In the Samsung handset if some defects are noticed, that will not automatically come within the meaning of manufacturing defect and there may be possibility for that defect due to mishandling, improper handling, or any other reasons also which could be rectified, and that is why, the Consumer Protection Act contemplates, expert opinion when the defect is not visible, when the complainant raised complaint, the dealer submitted the handset of the complainant to the service centre at its own cost as the complainant have taken a third party insurance by paying Rs.1,390/- from the dealer.  The service engineer inspected the said handset and found display damages in the handset which happened due to physical damages and failure of the complainant to take proper care of the set.  That the service centre informed that since the damages in the handset occurred due to mishandling, the said set is outside warranty and the replacement/ repair of the said set shall be done on chargeable basis.  The service centre also informed that there were no manufacturing defects in the handset and the defects in the said handset had happened due to mishandling done to the handset, therefore for such defects/damages in the said handset, the set is always considered outside warranty and therefore refund, replacement in case of mishandling, outside warranty period or physical damages were not included in the warranty terms and condition of the said handset.  It is also pertinent to mention that post repair the set was handed over to the dealer from the service centre and that the set was lost by the dealer/insurance company at their end, therefore they also offered a refund of Rs.5,400/- which was denied by the complainant for which the answering O.P is nowhere concerned.  That the answering O.P have been wrongly made a party to this complaint, the complainant never directly approached the service centre for any defects in the handset and that the defective set was always brought by the dealer to the service centre for all the repairs and defects.  That the answering O.P is not liable for any third-party insurance and acts of the any third-party dealer.  There were no manufacturing defects or any defects in the handset at the time of sale and that no such defects arose due to the manufacturing defects.  The purchase of the accidental insurance of Rs.1,390/- is not unknown to the answering O.P, thus left unanswered the complainant may be asked to provide necessary proof of the same.  The opposite party shall not be liable to pay compensations as there were no manufacturing defects found in the said handset.

Evidence

          The evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which were marked as Exbt.A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant and Exbt.B1 to B5 on the side of the opposite party1. 

On the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for consideration.

(1)     Whether the complainant had proved deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?

           (2)       If so, Reliefs and Costs?

Issue No.1

Admittedly the complainant Sri.Biju.N.Soman had purchased a A207 GALAXY A20 S 3GB 32 GB blue Samsung mobile from the 2^nd opposite party on 11/12/2019 as seen from Exbt.A1 copy of invoice, which is manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  On verification of Exbt.A2 it can be seen that the complainant had taken a GDOT protection plus certificate from the 2^nd opposite party by paying Rs.1,390/- vide certificate No:GDP/106734/MUV/19/12/11/1951.  As per the GDP plus pack, the protection of the product starts from 11/12/2019 and will ends on 10/12/2020.  Exbt.A3 is the job slip of the complainant’s phone A207 GALAXY A20 S 3GB 32 GB blue Samsung mobile dt.21/10/2020.  It is proved from Exbt.A3 that the complainant’s phone’s display broken.  As per the Exbt.A2, GDOT protection plus is a business policy to protect the gadget for one year life span.  GDP plus service will give protection or claim to physical/liquid damage.  The complainant submits that the mobile hand set fell down in March 2020 and the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for display change on 21/10/2020.  The complainant submits that the 2^nd opposite party collected Rs.600/- from the complainant for display change.  But the complainant has not produced any evidence to that effect.  The complainant also submits that instead of effecting the display change the 2^nd opposite party informed that the panel suffered  damage and offered refund of Rs.5,400/-.  The 1^st opposite party in their version states that ‘post repair the set was handed over to the dealer from the service centre and that the set was lost by the dealer/insurance company at their end therefore they also offered a refund of Rs.5,400/- which was denied by the complainant for which the 1^st opposite party is nowhere concerned.  The purchase of the accidental insurance Rs.1,390/- is not known to 1^st opposite party’.

The 1^st opposite party produced 4 documents.  As per Exbt.B2, the display is seen broken. As per the Good Protection Plus Certificate issued by the 2^nd opposite party(Exbt.A2) the complainant is eligible to get protection coverage from 11/12/2019 to 10/12/2020.  As per the job slip(dt.21/10/20) also it is clear that the damage occurred on the protection coverage period.  Here in the instant case, the dealer, 2^nd opposite party itself is the insurance company. Since the damage occurred within the coverage period, the 2^nd opposite party is liable to give the price of the mobile phone to the complainant.  Hence the 1^st issue is found in favour of the complainant.

The complainant’s allegations against the 2^nd opposite party stands unchallenged.  The notice sent to 2^nd opposite party is seen served on 27/01/2021.  2^nd opposite party neither appeared before the Commission nor filed their version.

The complainant has raised no allegations against the 1^st opposite party.  Since the complainant has raised any manufacturing defect about the phone, the 1^st opposite party is evaded from the liability.

Issue No.2

The complainant had spent his valuable time and money to contest the case before the Commission.  He had to suffer a lot of mental agony pain and other hardship and other sufferings due to the action of the opposite party.

            Having found that the issue No.1 and 2 in favour of the complainant we find that the complaint is allowable and we allow the complaint by making the following directions.

1. The 2^nd opposite party is directed to refund the price of mobile phone          Rs.11,199/- to the complainant.
2. The 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards 

compensation to the complainant towards the deficient service offered to the complainant.

3. We further award cost of proceedings to the complainant which we fix as

Rs.1,000/-.

            The above order shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

          Pronounced in the Commission on this the 23^rd day of April 2022

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

                                                                                                D.B.Binu, President

                                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                             V.Ramachandran, Member

s/

                                                                              Forwarded/by Order

Despatch date:

By hand:                                                                                Assistant Registrar

By post:         

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits:

Opposite party's Exhibits:         

Deposition:

NIL