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 26^th day of November 2024

CC.215/2023

Complainant

Kribhalu. T.K,

Ammu Bhavan,

Thattarkandy (HO),

P.O. West Hill,

Bhatt Road, PIN - 673005

Opposite Parties

1.               Tec Q,

Techno Trade Retail Services I Pvt. Ltd,

6/429, B15, Landship Mall,

Mavoor Road, Kozhikode.

PIN – 673001

2.               Samsung Service Centre,

35 TouchService Solution,

5/1312 H, 1^st Floor,

Sreevalsam Building,

East Nadakkavu,

Calicut – 673001

3.              Samsung,                                                                                                                                                                                                    6^th Floor, DLF Centre,

Sansad Marg,

New Delhi – 110000

(PO3 By Adv. Sri. Manimangalath Sameer Babu)

ORDER

By Sri.V.BALAKRISHNAN  - MEMBER

            This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

On 28/03/2023 he purchased a Samsung Galaxy X23 Ultra mobile phone from fist opposite party. After using for a period of 1 month it was noticed that the paint at bottom of the handset was got removed. The first opposite party was contacted immediately. They informed the complainant to give the handset to the second opposite party. No reply was received to him for 2 weeks. Then he approached the first opposite party. They informed that they were told by the company that nothing could be done from their side. Also no favourable service was provided by the second opposite party. The product was purchased by him paying a big amount. The third opposite party, the manufacturer of the product, has defeated his expectation and belief. The complainant seeks replacement of the phone with a new one of the same model or refund the bill amount of Rs, 1,18,000/-.

3. The second opposite party was set ex-parte. The first opposite party has not filed the version. The third opposite party has filed version. According to them, the complaint is baseless, devoid of any merit and without any cause of action. The intention of them as a company is to serve its customers and provide the goods at the most competitive price and provide the best after sales services. In case any after sales service is required it is provided by their authorised service centres. According to them, the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint that when and at what time he has reported any complaint with the authorised service centre as per the warranty terms and conditions and also date of the inspection done by the service centre. Also no service history is available in the office record of the service centre with respect to the specific mobile handset. According to them, as per the warranty also, only issues arising within the scope of the warranty will be repaired free of cost and all repairs outside the warranty would be done on chargeable basis. So the third opposite party contents that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from their part and the complaint is to be dismissed.
4. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;

1. Whether there was any unfair trade and business practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?

2) Reliefs and costs.

5. Evidence consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 and A2 on the side of the complainant. The mobile handset was produced before the Commission and the same returned to the complainant after verification on undertaking to produce it as and when demanded. On verification of the handset it is seen that the grievance of the complainant is genuine. It is noted that the paint on the bottom of the frame of the hand set is got removed. There is no oral evidence adduced by the third opposite party. Ext B1 marked on the side of the third opposite party.
6. Heard.
7. Point No 1: The complainant has approached this Commission seeking the replacement of the mobile handset or refund of the amount of Rs. 1,18,000/-from the opposite parties.
8. In order to substantiate his case the complainant got examined as PW1. He has filed proof affidavit and deposed of averments in the complaint. Ext A1 is the invoice of mobile hand set and Ext A2 are the images. 
9. There is no dispute about the purchase of the handset and its price. From Ext A1 it is clear that the purchase was made on 28/03/2023, from the first opposite party by paying an amount of Rs. 1,18,000/-. According to the complainant, within months the paint got removed at bottom side of the hand set. From Ext A2 also it is proved beyond any doubt that the paint got removed at bottom. The complainant soon on noticing the defect contacted the first opposite party and as per their direction the second opposite party was contacted. It is an admitted fact that the mobile handset is having no other complaints in the functioning and the service centre has nothing to do. Naturally in such a case the service centre will not receive the handset and issue a job card or acknowledgement of receipt. So the allegation of the third opposite party that there is no documents of service records produced by the complainant cannot hold good.
10. In the cross examination the complainant has stated that the manager of service centre was contacted over phone. He replied that the message about the specific defect of handset was informed to customer care from service centre itself.  From Ext A2 images it is also evident that, on 5^th May 2023 certain images were transmitted to Nihad CP Samsung and later found disappeared due to whatsapp setting done. It is evident that he made 2 voice calls in 2^nd November 2023 with duration of 35 seconds and 2 minutes at 3.52 pm and 3.53 pm. So it is a fact that the complainant made his earliest effort to contact the first and second opposite parties for getting a remedy to his complaint.
11. As mentioned earlier, the complaint about the handset is regarding the paint got removed case and not about the functional issue, and so an expert opinion is not necessary. So the contention that the mobile phone was not examined by an expert will not hold good.
12. The argument of third opposite party is that as per the warranty policy, only issues arising within the scope of warranty will be repaired free of cost and all repairs outside the warranty will be done on chargeable basis. There is no denial by the third opposite party that the paint on the bottom part of the handset was got removed. Being a higher end mobile handset which cost about Rs.1,18,0000/-, the paint got removed case at any part within a short period is a manufacturing defect and the third opposite party is responsible for the defect.   
13. After receiving such a huge amount the opposite parties cannot sell a mobile handset which became a paint got removed piece within a short period. The complainant approached this Commission in the month of June 2023, within months of purchase. There is unfair trade and business practice and deficiency of service on the part of the first and third opposite parties in selling a hand set of which the paint was got removed at the bottom of the frame. Hence the opposite parties 1 and 3 are to be directed to replace the  hand set with a new one or in the alternative refund the price.
14. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;

                 a)  CC.215/2023 is allowed.

b) The opposite parties 1 and 3 are hereby directed to replace the mobile hand set, Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra to the complainant with a new one of the same description, which shall be free from any defect, or in the alternative, refund the purchase price of Rs. 1,18,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighteen thousand only) to the complainant after taking back the device.

c) The second opposite party is exonerated.

d) The liability of opposite parties 1 and 3 are joint and several.

e) No order as to costs.

f) The order shall be complied with, within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order failing which, the amount of Rs. 1,18,000/- shall carry an interest of 9% per annum from the date of this order till compliance. 

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 26^th  day of November, 2024.

Date of Filing: 05/06/2023

                                             Sd/-                                                         Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

                                      PRESIDENT                                           MEMBER                                       MEMBER

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext.A1 – Invoice of mobile hand set.

Ext.A2 – The images.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Ext B1 – Copy of the resolution.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1 -  Kribhalu. T.K (Complainant)

                                             Sd/-                                                         Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

                                      PRESIDENT                                           MEMBER                                       MEMBER

True Copy,      

                                                                                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                Assistant Registrar.