BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.754/2015

DATED ON THIS THE 2^nd June 2017

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,

President

1.     This complaint is filed for a direction to opposite parties to refund the entire cost of the mobile i.e. Rs.19,799/- with damages of Rs.50,000/- and legal expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
2.    The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer, opposite party No.3 is the dealer and opposite party No.2 is the authorised service centre of Samsung mobile.  On 16.05.2015 he has purchased Samsung E7 Model No.SM-E700HZWDINS for Rs.19,799/- from opposite party No.3.  After two months, the said mobile developed some technical problem.  Then he has approached opposite party No.2 – service centre on 04.08.2015.  On the same day, at 3.30 PM he has received phone call from opposite party No.2 stating that there is internal damage to the handset, same is considered as external damage, which was not covered under warranty.  Then he has approached opposite party No.2, he has noticed the scratches on the screen of the mobile, for having questioned the same, opposite party No.2 has given illogical reply stating that this only minute scratches.  Then complainant called the Proprietor of opposite party No.2 to explain the grievance.  But, he never attended the call initially, finally when the call was attended, he stated that he was returning to Mysuru and look into the issue.  Thereafter, there is no communication and opposite party No.2 has given adamant reply to the grievance of the complainant.  There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2 in not attending the repairs to the mobile well within the warranty period.  Hence, this complaint is filed.
3.     All the opposite parties are served with notice.  Opposite party No.2 absent, placed exparte.  Opposite party Nos.1 and 3 appeared through their respective advocates and filed their independent versions. 
4.     Opposite party No.1 being the manufacturer, false allegations are made against him.  The complainant has filed invoice copy, job sheet, notice copy and sought for refund of mobile cost and other monetary expenses under various heads.  Customer has not accepted the explanation given by the opposite party No.2-service centre.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.  As such, opposite party No.1 has sought for dismissal of the complaint.
5.    Opposite party No.3 being the dealer has filed the version admitting the sale of mobile to the complainant on 16.05.2015.  Opposite party No.3 being the dealer is not liable to answer the claim in question since there is service centre for any defect in the product.  Thereby, opposite party No.3 has sought for dismissal of this complaint.
6.     On the above contentions, this matter is set down for evidence.  During evidence, on behalf of complainant, complainant has filed affidavit evidence and further evidence closed.  On the behalf of opposite party No.1, its Deputy General Manager Custom filed the affidavit.  One Pawan has filed affidavit for and on behalf of opposite party No.3 – dealer.  After hearing the arguments, this matter is posted for orders.
7.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in not properly attending the repair to the mobile purchased by the complainant within the warranty period, as such he is entitled for the reliefs?
2.  What order?

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

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative against opposite party No.2 only.

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

:: R E A S O N S ::

9.    Point No.1:- During evidence, the complainant has filed affidavit reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  It is not in dispute that the complainant has purchased mobile from opposite party No.3 under document No.1 bill dated 16.05.2015.  Document No.2 is acknowledgement of the service requests issued by opposite party No.2.  In this document, defect description is shown as “BLANK DISPLAY” and there are no other defects shown in this job sheet by opposite party No.2. In this document on the revers side, there is remarks to the effect that there is physical damage which was dismissed with the customer.  But, if there is any defect in the product or if there is any repairs, it is the duty of service centre to take care of it and provide service to the customer.  In this, opposite party No.2 – service centre failed to provide service and necessary repairs to the product sold by opposite party No.3 manufactured by opposite party No.1.  Even the handset was not returned to the complainant.  In the circumstances, if there is any liability it is only on opposite party No.2 – the service centre and not against the manufacturer or the dealer i.e. opposite party Nos.1 and 3.  In the circumstances, opposite party No.2 alone has committed deficiency of service.  Hence, opposite party No.2 is alone liable to answer the claim in question.  Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative against opposite party No.2 only.
10.  Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, opposite party No.2 alone is liable to refund Rs.19,799/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 04.08.2015 till payment.  Further, opposite party No.2 is also liable to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.   Hence, we pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party No.2 is hereby directed to pay Rs.19,799/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 04.08.2015 till payment.
3. The opposite party No.2 is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,000/- litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.  Failing which, the said sum of Rs.22,000/- shall carry interest  at 12% p.a. from the date of this complaint i.e. 13.11.2015 till payment.
4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party No.2 to undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. Complaint against opposite party Nos.1 and 3 is dismissed.
6. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 2^nd June 2017)