IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

Monday the 28^thday of February, 2022.

                                      Filed on 23.04.2021

Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
2. Smt.P.RSholy, B.A., LLB (Member)In

CC/No.101/2021

between

O R D E R

SMT.P.R SHOLY (MEMBER)

This is a consumer complaint filed under Sec.35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

1.     Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-

        The complainant bought a Samsung A30 S mobile phone from the 2^nd opposite party on 04/05/2020 for Rs.17,020/-.  From 21/04/2021, a round violet colour shape formed on the display and on 22/04/2021 the same was spread over the display with black colour.  After that, on 22/04/2021 the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party and they informed that this has occurred due to the damage in display.  They told to submit the mobile to the                                 1^st opposite party’s service centre and the same will be repaired free of cost under warranty.  The phone’s warranty was till 03/05/2021, but the 1^st opposite party denied to repair the damage under warranty and demanded cash for the replacement of the display. 

The complainant said that the mobile has warranty till 03/05/2021, so he won’t pay any money to repair the damaged display.  The 1^st opposite party said that the damage has occurred from the complainant’s fault due to falling down.  But there was no physical damage to the phone.  Then the 2^nd opposite party contacted the 1^st opposite party but they replied the same.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint for directing the opposite parties to replace the said mobile with a new one or to cure the defect on free of cost.

1^st opposite party remained exparte:

2.     Version filed by 2^nd party mainly contenting as follows:-

The above complaint is not maintainable.  This opposite party is only a dealer of the manufacturer company selling the products on a meagre scale of margin.  The warranty coverage and other services of the product are not within the preview of this opposite party.

It is apparently clear from the complaint that the reliefs are merely sought as against the 1^st opposite party who are the authorized service centre of the manufacturing company.  Significantly the complaint is purely relates to manufacturing defect and it is necessary and mandatory that the manufacturing company is to be made a party to the present litigation.  Therefore this complaint is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties.

As far as this opposite party is concerned mobile phone manufactured by Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, Rep by its Managing Director Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, Two Horizen center, 21^st floor, DLF Phase-5, Sector 43, Galf course Road, Gurgaon-122002-Haryana, was purchased from this opposite party and the time of purchase the mobile phone was switched off and verified and absolute satisfaction of the same that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone.  When the complainant came with the issue as pleaded in the complaint, this opposite party directed the complainant to approach the 1^st opposite party who are the authorized service centre of the manufacturing company since the mobile phone was within the warranty period.  In this context it is respectfully stated that during the warranty period it is for the authorized service centre of the manufacturer to attend any complaint whatsoever so that the particular products gets protection under warranty.  In the instant case it is learnt that the 2^nd opposite party is the authorized service centre of the manufacturer rejected the claim under warranty stating the reason that there is physical damage in the mobile phone.  There is absolutely no cause of action as against this opposite party and hence the present complaint may be dismissed with compensatory costs.

3.     On the above pleading the points raised for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint? If so, for what extent?
2. Reliefs and cost.

Evidence in this case consists oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2 on the side of the complainant.No oral as well as documentary evidence on the part of 2^nd opposite party who only appeared and filed version in response to the complaint. 1^st opposite party remained exparte.Heard the complainant.

Complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext A1 and A2.Ext A1 is the tax invoice regarding the mobile phone in question and A2 is its warranty card.

On perusal of Ext A1, it shows that the complainant had purchased the disputed mobile phone from 2^nd opposite party on 04/05/2020 for and amount of Rs.17,020/-.It revealed from Ext.A2 the said mobile was having a warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase.The PW1’s case is that on 21/04/2021 the defect occurred on the said mobile phone, and though it was reported on 22/04/2021 the opposite parties were not responded to rectify the said defect.Alleging deficiency in service by the opposite parties, the complainant filed this complaint for redressing his grievance.The 1^st opposite party is reluctant to appear before the Commission even after receipt of the notice.The 2^nd opposite party filed version contenting all the allegations leveled against them.2^nd opposite party averred in the version that the 1^st opposite party, being the authorized service centre of the manufacturing company of the disputed product who are liable to cure the defect of the product since the mobile phone was within the warranty period and also directed the complainant to approach the 1^st opposite party.That was confirmed by PW1 during cross examination by learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd opposite party.In view of the above we are of the opinion that the 1^st opposite party has forth with removed the defect of the mobile phone in

In the result the complaint stands allowed in part in the following terms:-

1. 1^st opposite party is liable to remove the defect of the mobile phone in question in free of cost within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
2. The 1^st opposite party is liable to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards compensation with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.
3. Complainant is entitled to recover Rs.1,000/- from the 1^st opposite party as cost of the proceedings.

The order shall be complied within one monthfrom the date of the receipt of this order.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 28^th day of February, 2022.

                               Sd/-Smt.Sholly.P.R (Member)

                                           Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                           -           Subash Chandra Bose (Complainant)

Ext.A1                       -           Tax Invoice dtd. 4/5/2020     

Ext.A2                       -           Warranty Card

Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil

///True Copy ///

To     

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                     By Order

                                                                                                Assistant Registrar

Typed by:- Sa/-

Compared by:-