IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 07th day of December, 2024
Filed on: 25.01.2024
Present
- Smt. P.R.Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (President in Charge )
- Smt. C.K.Lekhamma . B.A. LLB (Member)
In
CC/No. 28/2024
between
Complainant:- Sri. Baby.K.K, S/o Kurian Kollamparambil House Charamangalam Muhamma.P.O, Thanneermukkom South Village Muhamma Panchayat Ward 1 Cherthala, Alappuzha-688525 (Adv. Sreenidas.A) | Opposite Parties:- 1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd Regd Office -6th Floor, DLF Centre Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 Repd by Chief Executive Officer 2. M/s Sky Solutions 40/712 Old No.35/186, 1st Floor Palarivattom, Kochi-688025 (Exparte) 3. M/s Cellur World, CMC 5/12 Muncipal Complex, Cherthala Alappuzha-688524 (Exparte) |
| |
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLY.P.R (PRESIDENT IN CHARGE)
Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
1. Complainants case briefly stated are as follows: -
The complainant’s son Mr. Alex purchased a Samsung phone model No. SM-F7213 (Galazy Z Fold 4) of the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs. 90,000/- on 16/9/2022 from 3rd opposite party and presented the same to the complainant as his birthday gift and the complainant had been using the said mobile as a beneficiary of the said gadget under original purchaser.
2. The said mobile phone, while in warranty, developed fault and became unusable and the complainant took the same to 3rd opposite party on 26/6/2023. The 3rd opposite party in turn forwarded the same to the 2nd opposite party, the authorized service centre of 1st opposite party, for carrying out repairs. After a lapse of 23 days, the faulty product was returned to the complainant without repairing and without assigning any reason as to why the gadget was returned unrepaired.
3. Though the complainant filed a complaint to a Consumer Association, it was not succeeded. Hence this complaint filed before this Commission seeking relief for refund of the price of the disputed mobile phone with interest along with Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant on account of deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties.
4. In response to the complaint only 1st opposite party filed version though all the opposite parties accepted the notice along with copy of complaint.
5. The averments stated in the version of 1st opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless, and unsustainable in law as it deliberately suppressed the material fact that the defect caused is physical damage to the mobile phone due to mishandling or improper handling. As per the terms and conditions of warranty the defects caused due to physical damage do not fall under warranty coverage and there is no evidence of manufacturing defect to the mobile phone as claimed by the complainant for which refund or replacement of the gadget were not included in the warranty terms and conditions of the said product. Hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
6. On the above pleadings the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to refund Rs. 90,000/- from opposite party bank?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation from opposite party?
4. Reliefs and cost?
7. Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ext.A1 to A12 and Ext.C1 on the side of complainant. No oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the opposite parties. Both sides filed note of argument.
8. Point No. 1 to 3:-
PW1 is the complainant in this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 to A12.
9. PW2 is the Expert Commissioner who was appointed for inspecting the disputed gadget for filing report. As such he filed report which marked as Ext.C1, while he was examined.
10. PW1’s case is that while he used the Samsung mobile phone as a beneficiary of the same since the said phone purchased by his son and presented to the complainant for birthday gift, the said phone became defective within the warranty period of 1 year from the date of purchase. It is not disputed that the mobile phone in question was purchased on 16/9/2022. On a perusal of Ext.A2 a job card issued by 3rd opposite party with regard to the defect occurred in the said phone which reveals that the defect is within the period warranty. Ext.A3 is the acknowledgment of service request by 2nd opposite party dtd. 3/7/2023 in which the defect description noted as “greenish issue”. PW2, the Expert Commissioner having Diploma in Electronic Production Technology and experience of 10 years reported in Ext.C1, Commissioner Report in par with the above description of greenish colour on the display of the phone. PW2, further categorically stated that the display problem originated due to manufacturing defect of the phone. He could also not found any mishandling of the phone for causing the said defect. As the PW2 clarified during re-examination that the software issue itself is manufacturing defect and the user of the mobile phone cannot make any software issues on its. Moreover though the 2nd opposite party narrates the warranty of the product as “out of warranty” as per Ext.A3, it was seen in Ext.A2 as “on warranty issued by opposite party No.3. Hence it can be realized that without any basis the service centre of the company denied the service of curing the defect of the product alleging no manufacturing defect. As per the deposition of PW2 coupled with Ext.C1 report it categorically proved the cause of defect to the disputed mobile phone is manufacturing and not due to any improper use or mishandling by its user. PW2 also reported that there is no physical damage of any kind to the gadget either external or internal. By proving the manufacturing defect of the disputed mobile phone through expert opinion the reliance of rulings cited by the 1st opposite party in their version will not stand.
11. In the light of proving the manufacturing defect of the disputed device in consequence of denial of repairing the same free of cost within the warranty period we are of the opinion that the complainant is eligible to refund the cost of the gadget from 1st opposite party. Regarding compensation, as we allowed the refund of entire amount, limit the same for Rs. 10,000/-. These points are found in favour of the complainant.
12. Point no. 4:-
In the result complaint stands allowed in part in the following terms:-
A. 1st opposite party is directed to repay Rs. 90,000/- to the complainant being the cost of disputed gadget within 1 month of receipt of copy of this order accepting the device from complainant.
B. Opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony to the complainant.
C. Opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 5000/- as cost of proceedings to the complainant.
D. Complaint against the 3rd opposite party stands dismissed.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 07th day of December, 2024.
Sd/- Smt. P.R. Sholy (President in Charge)
Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - BabyK.K (Complainant)
PW2 - Sreejith. K.M ( Expert Commissioner)
Ext.A1 - Tax Invoice
Ext.A2 - Service Job Sheet
Ext.A3 - Acknowledgment of Service Request
Ext.A4 - Application for Consumer Association
Ext.A5 - Notice from Cherthala Taluk Consumer Association to Ops
Ext.A6 to A8 - Postal Receipts
Ext.A9 - Letter from Postal Department
Ext. A10 - Acknowledgment Card
Ext.A11 - Acknowledgment Card
Ext.A12 - Phone Quick start
Ext.C1 - Commission Report.
Evidence of the opposite parties:- NIL
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
