DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER Tuesday the 30th day of August 2022
C.C. 396/2017
Complainant
V. Sathyan, Advocate,
Valiyarambath House,
Cheliya (P.O),
Koyilandy Taluk,
Kozhikode District – 673306.
(By Adv. Sri. G. Praveen Kumar)
Opposite Parties
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre,
Golf Course Road, Sector- 43, DLF PH-V,
Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 202.
- Atlas Mobiles, Samsung authorized Service Centre,
First Floor, Sreevalsam Building,
Near East Avenue, East Nadakav.
(By Adv. Sri. Manimangalath Sameer Babu)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The first opposite party is the manufacturer and marketing agency of mobile phones and the second opposite party is the authorised service agency under the first opposite party. The complainant purchased a Samsung SM-A510FZDFKSA model mobile phone manufactured by the first opposite party. The display of the said mobile phone was damaged by spreading ink like colour in the screen. On approaching the second opposite party, the display unit was replaced collecting Rs. 6386.74 from the complainant towards cost of material and labour charges since the handset was not purchased from India.
3. But the handset started showing the same defect. The second opposite party refused to replace the display unit free of cost during the warranty period of the spare parts. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable and responsible for the conduct of the first opposite party which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant issued a lawyer notice demanding refund of Rs. 6386.74/- and compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. Though the notice was served on the opposite parties, they have not paid the amount, but sent a reply raising untenable contentions. Hence the complaint.
4. The first opposite party has filed written version. The second opposite party was set ex-parte.
5. The contentions, in brief, of the first opposite party are as follows; The complainant purchased the mobile phone in question from Dubai. On 01-06-2017 he approached the service centre with a complaint of spreading ink colour in the screen. The handset was thoroughly checked by the service engineers and found that the display was broken due to physical damage which was not covered under the warranty not only for the reason of physical damage, but also for the reason that the handset was purchased in Dubai. Hence service charge was levied and LCD was replaced and the handset returned to the complainant. Thereafter another complaint was reported. Since the handset was physically damaged and moreover purchased from Dubai, which does not cover any warranty, repair charges has to be paid. Without knowing the status, the complainant has filed the present complaint raising frivolous and false allegations.
6. As per the terms of the warranty policy, only issues arising during the warranty period will be repaired free of cost. The service centre was ready and even now ready to provide service on cost, but the complainant is not ready and he filed the present compliant. There is no manufacturing defect in the handset. There was no deficiency service or unfair trade practice on the part the first opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount or compensation. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. The points that arise or determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
8. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A5 on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was let in by the opposite parties. Exts B1 to B4 were marked on the side the first opposite party. .
9. We heard both sides.
10 Point No.1 : The complainant has approached this Commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. He purchased a handset manufactured by the first opposite party from Dubai, but the display of the handset was damaged by spreading ink like colour in the screen. It was repaired by second opposite party by replacing display unit at a cost of Rs – 6386.74. The grievance of the complainant is that the handset showed the same defect and his request for replacement of the display unit free of cost was turned down by the second opposite party. Hence he seeks refund of Rs – 16.386.74 which was paid by him by way of cost of spare part along with compensation of Rs. 10,000.
11. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint. Ext A1 is the tax invoice dated 05-06-2017, Ext A2 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 16-08-2017, Ext A3 is the postal receipt and Ext A4 is the reply notice dated 14-09-2017.
12. The case advanced by the contesting first opposite party is that since the product was purchased not from India, it does not cover any warranty and hence the repair has to be done on chargeable basis. They are ready to render service and there was no latches or negligence on their part. It is also their contention that there is no manufacturing defect to the product. The first opposite party did not adduce any oral evidence. Ext B1 is the copy of the power of attorney, Ext B2 is the job cards, Ext B3 is the image and Ext B4 is the copy of the reply notice dated 14-09-2017.
13. In a consumer case, the onus to prove deficiency of service is on the complainant. Without proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held liable for deficiency. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the handset in question manufactured by the first opposite party from Dubai. It does not carry warranty and hence the repairs pertaining to the set handset are to be done on chargeable basis. The complainant approached the second opposite party with complaint of spreading ink like colour in the screen of the handset. The defect was rectified by replacing the display unit on chargeable basis. Again the same complaint repeated and this time complainant wanted repairs free of cost, which was declined by the second opposite party. The crucial point to be considered is as to whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in demanding the repair charges. Admittedly the benefit of the warranty is not available to the handset in question. The case of the complainant is that he is entitled to claim replacement without any further costs during warranty period of the spare parts. There is absolutely nothing in evidence to show that the spare part is having any such warranty. Equally, there is nothing to indicate that there is any manufacturing defect for the spare part. No expert evidence has been let in by the complainant in this regard. As long as the benefit of the warranty is not available, the opposite parties are entitled to demand charges for the repairs. The first opposite party has expressed their readiness and willingness to render service. The complainant also has no case that the opposite parties were not ready to do the repairs. That being the position, no deficiency of service can be attributed against the opposite parties.
14. From the above discussion, what emerges is that there is no proof of any deficiency of service on the part the opposite parties as alleged and consequently the complaint must fail.
15. Point No.2: In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not eligible to claim and get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 30th day of August, 2022.
Date of Filing: 03/11/2017.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Tax invoice dated 05/06/2017.
Ext. A2 – Copy of the lawyer notice dated 16/08/2017.
Ext. A3 – Postal receipt.
Ext. A4 – Reply notice dated 14/09/2017.
Ext. A5 – Tax invoice.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Ext. B1 – Copy of the Power of Attorney.
Ext. B2 – Job cards.
Ext. B3 – Image.
Ext. B4 – Copy of reply notice.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – V. Sathyan – Advocate (Complainant).
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded / By Order
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
