Complaint filed on: 15.04.2014 Disposed on: 04.01.2018 BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU 1ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU ? 560 027 CC.No.680/2014 DATED THIS THE 04TH JANUARY OF 2018 PRESENT SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER Complainant/s: - Siddalingaiah S/o Gangadaraiah, aged about 32 years, R/at no.7/2, 2nd cross, 3rd main, Byraveshwara nagar, laggere, Bengaluru-58. By Inperson V/s Opposite party/s Respondent/s:- Managing Director, Samsung India Electronic Service Ltd., no.13, 3 & 4 floor, CRM Chambers, Opp. to Yes Bank, Prestige Building Kasturiba road, Bengaluru-01. By Advocates M/s.Purna Law Associates Proprietor/Manager, Telenet Service, Samsung India Electronic (service center), no.1, 1st cross, 80 feet road, 6th block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-47. Ex-parte Managing Director, Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt. ltd., Head office no.1183, 22-A cross, BSK 2nd stage, Bengaluru-70. By Adv.Sri.S.N.Madhu PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite parties no.1 to 3 (herein after referred as Op.no.1, 2 & 3 or Ops) seeking direction against them to pay back the cost of mobile handset of Rs.21,793/- along with damages of Rs.25,000/- for causing negligence, mental torture and wastage of time etc., 2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that he approached the Op.no.3 at ITPL Whitefield, Bengaluru branch with an intention to purchase a mobile phone for his own use. The sale representatives of the Op.no.3 shown the verities of mobile phones, he purchased the Samsung handset Samsung Grand mobile (herein after referred as the said mobile handset) IMEI no.356150059680820 GT-19082 on 22.04.13 for a sum of Rs.20,672/- with VAT at 5% of Rs.1,120/- in total sum of Rs.21,793/- and the warranty was also offered to the said mobile handset. Accordingly he has collected the said mobile handset. After purchase of the mobile handset, within four months, mobile stopped its functioning. Accordingly he approached Op.no.2 i.e. service center. The technicians of the said service center revealed, on the examination of the mobile set and informed that the mobile mother board got damage physically and later said that liquid damages to the mobile. In this context, it was informed to pay Rs.4,200/- to replace the mobile mother board. In this context, he has received job car no.4160120435, though the mistake found in the said mobile handset was within the warranty period. None of the Ops responded inspite of the legal notice dtd.16.01.2014 & 05.03.2014 were issued. To the said notice untenable answer has been given by the Op.no.2 & 3. Hence he prays for allow the complaint. 3. On receipt of the Complainant?s notice has been ordered to issue to the Ops. Op.no.1 & 3 did appear through their counsel and filed separate version. Inspite of the notice duly served on Op.no.2 did not appear before this forum to oppose the claim of the Complainant. Hence the Op.no.2 is placed ex-parte. 4. Op.no.1 & 3 filed separate version. The sum and substance of the version filed by Op.no.1 is that Complainant purchased the said mobile handset is an admitted fact but the Complainant lodged the complaint on 04.03.2014, just 12 days before expiry of the warranty period. Op further submits that the modus operandi of the Complainant in filing the complaint just before expiry of the warranty period is to impress upon the forum that the product is having certain problem during warranty period. It is also the contention of the Op that if there is waterlog to the device, then also the product in question does not cover warranty. The said device in question has stopped from function due to waterlog, which is caused due to mishandling of the product at the time of usage by the Complainant. As such the service center rightly rejected the demand of the Complainant at free of service, since the waterlog does not cover warranty. On these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint. 5. The objection filed by Op.no.3 also to similar that of Op.no.1, since the non-coverage of warranty to waterlog cases, it does not come within the warranty period. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint. 6. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and produced 8 documents which are not marked as exhibits, but anyhow the said documents are taken in to consideration as serial no.1 to 8. Sr.Manager of Op.no.1 company filed his affidavit evidence and got marked the documents Ex-B1. Manager of Op.no.3 filed her affidavit evidence and none of the documents got marked. Written arguments filed by Op.no.1. We placed reliance on the available materials on record. Heard both side 7. The points that arise for our consideration are: Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of Ops, if so, whether the Complainant entitled for the relief sought for ? What order ? 8. Our answers to the above points are as under: Point no.1: In the Affirmative Point no.2: As per the final order for the following REASONS 9. Point no.1: It is not in dispute that the Complainant has purchased Samsung Grand mobile, IMEI no.356150059 680820 GT-19082 from Op.no.3 at ITPL Whitefield, Bengaluru branch for an amount of Rs.21,793/- vide invoice dtd.22.04.13. 10. It is also not seriously disputed that after 4 months from the date of purchase, the said mobile set stopped its functioning, hence the Complainant approached Op.no.2 service center. The technicians of the said service center revealed on the examination of the said mobile set and informed that the mobile mother board got damage physically and later said that liquid damages to the mobile. In this context, they declined to service without free of cost, and the approximate service charge is Rs.4,200/-. The Complainant who did appear in person vehemently urged before us stating that at the time of purchasing of the said mobile set, he has received the invoice, wherein he noticed the terms & conditions. In this context, he placed reliance on the copy of the invoice dtd.22.04.13 produced by him, wherein the four following conditions have been incorporated: Terms & conditions: Goods once sold will not be taken back or replaced Warranty whatsoever provided is by the manufacturers and not by Sangeetha For after sales service place contact the concerned service center Please check the contents before leaving. Sangeetha is not responsible for any shortage reported later. 11. He has also brought to our noticed with regard to the other warranty conditions of the manufacturers produced by Op.no.1 marked as Ex-B1 which are: The warranty is confined to the first purchaser of the product only and is not transferable Repairs under warranty period shall be carried out by the company authorized personnel only. The details of service centers/support required are available at the company website www.samsung.com/india or in the centralized helpline (30308282) from mobiles 1800 110011 from MTNL/BSNL lines For unit installed beyond municipal limits of the jurisdiction of the company?s authorized service center, it is the responsibility of the purchaser to contact the nearest authorized service center and bring the unit to the authorized service center at purchaser?s cost and risk. Calls registered with the centralized helpline/authorized service center, wherein only cleaning of the unit/parts in the unit due to dust gathering on portions of the unit, general explanations/returning, particular software not being read/installed, are not to be construed as defects. The company does not undertake responsibility on the quality of software being used by purchasers. In the event of repairs of any part/s of the unit, this warranty will thereafter continue and remain in force only for the unexpired period of the warranty. The time taken for repair and in transit whether under the warranty or otherwise shall not be excluded from the warranty period. Any change of address by the original purchaser shall be intimated to the concerned authorized service center by the purchaser, and warranty will be applicable only after inspection of the unit and clearance of condition by authorized service center personnel. In case of any damage to the product/misuse detected by the authorized service center personnel, the warranty conditions are not applicable and repairs will be done subject to availability of parts and on a chargeable basis only The company?s obligation under this warranty shall `be limited to repair or providing replacement of parts only. The maximum claims if entertained by the company will be subject to the maximum retail price of the product purchased or the purchase price, whichever is lower. In the event of any unforeseen circumstance, and spares not being available the company?s prevailing depreciation rules will be binding on the purchaser to accept as a commercial solution in lieu of repairs. 10. In the event of the company offering extended warranty period for any specific product/period it is the responsibility of the purchaser to get the warranty card duly registered with the nearest authorized service center of the company, within 2 weeks of purchasing under such an offer, at the purchasers cost and risk only. Referring to the above terms & conditions submit that in both above stated documents nothing is mentioned with regard to the crack or liquidlog in the said mobile set. 12. Further the Complainant submits that he has not subscribed his signature to the service request forms dtd.24.09.13 & dtd.05.09.13. Under such circumstances, so called terms & conditions in the service requests are not applicable to him. We have gone through the contents of the said service requests, wherein, the signature found above the place of signatory of the customer is not tallying with the signature subscribed by the Complainant on the complaint as well as on the other documents. But with regard to the invoice dtd.22.04.13, we find the signature of the Complainant that almost tally with the admitted signature found in the complaint & in the affidavit evidence filed in support of his claim, so also on the vakalathnama. Under such circumstances, we are inclined to accept the submissions of the Complainant. In the very document produced by Op.no.1, we do not find any such type of terms & conditions with regard to the liquidlog. This forum has come across such type of cases, wherein the service center tailor made answer is liquidlog, hence it is out of warranty and the mobile set is to be repairable on payment of cost. These terms & conditions are appears to be arbitrary. In this context, the decision cited by the Op.no.1 reported in CA.no.9057/1996 in the case of Bharathi Knitting co., Vs. DHL Worldwide express courier division of Air Frieght ltd., is not applicable since the Complainant is not signatory of the 2 service forms dtd.24.09.13 & 05.09.13. Under such circumstances, this forum has no other go except to come to the conclusion that the so called defect found in he said mobile set was within in the warranty period. Due to the damage of the motherboard, the said mobile set not functioning. In this context, when the Complainant approached Ops, by one or the other pretext they gave evasive answers. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of Ops. When the deficiency has been specifically proved by the Complainant, under such circumstances, the Op.no.2 which is the service center ought to have rectify the defect by way of replacing the motherboard at free of cost. In this context, if we direct the Op.no.2 who is the service center to replace the mother board at free of cost within six weeks from the date of this order, which will sub-serve the ends of justice, failing which the Op.no.1 & 3 are directed to refund an amount of Rs.21,793/- being the price of the said mobile set to the Complainant. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the affirmative. 13. Point no.2: In view of our findings on point no.1, we passed the following. ORDER The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby allowed. 2. We direct the Complainant to surrender the said Samsung mobile handset before Op.no.2 forthwith not later than two weeks from today for change of the motherboard. In the event of receipt of the said mobile handset, Op.no.2 is directed to change the mother board of the said mobile handset and get it repair in usable condition with free of cost. If the Op.no.2 failed to exchange the mother board, then the Op.no.1 who being the manufacturer and the Op.no.3 who being the seller are jointly and severally liable to refund an amount of Rs.21,793/- being the price of the said mobile handset to the Complainant. 3. The Ops are directed to comply this order within six weeks from the date of this order. The cost of litigation is Rs.1,000/-. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 4th January of 2018). (SURESH.D) MEMBER (ROOPA.N.R) MEMBER (S.L.PATIL) PRESIDENT 1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit: Sri.Siddalingaiah, who being the complainant was examined. Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s: Doc.no.1 Postal receipt Doc.no.2 Legal notice dtd.16.01.14 Doc.no.3 Reply notice dtd.31.01.14 Doc.no.4 Letter from Op.no.2 dtd.27.01.14 Doc.no.5 Invoice dtd.22.04.13 Doc.no.6 Service requests dtd.24.09.13 & 05.09.13 Doc.no.7 Letter to Op.no.2 dtd.18.10.13 Doc.no.8 Email correspondences 2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit: Sri.Srinivas Joshi, who being the Sr.Manager of Op.no.1 was examined. Smt.Prathima, who being the Manager of Op.no.3 was examined. Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party no.1 Ex-B1 Customer details cum warranty card (SURESH.D) MEMBER (ROOPA.N.R) MEMBER (S.L.PATIL) PRESIDENT