State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd., vs 1.Ch. Anand Goud on 26 September, 2022
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FA.NO.507 OF 20188
Against orders in
Cc.NO. 76 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF
DISTRICT cONSUMER COMMISSION, ADILABAD
Between:
Samsung India Elcctronics Pvt. Ltd.,
#1-10-39 to 44, GUMIDELLI TOWERS
Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016, T.S.
Rep.by its person in charge.
Appcllant/Opposite Party No.2
AND
1. Ch. Anand Goud S/o. Late Raja Goud,
Age: 39 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.H.No.1-324,Dasnapur,
Adilabad.
.... Respondent/Complainant
2. Samsung Smart Phone Cafe,
APEX Electronic Communication,
#4-2-173/10, Cinema Road, Adilabad.
Rep.by it person Incharge.
3.Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd.,
5th Floor, Block-B, Godrej IT Park,
Pirojshanagar, LBS Marg, Vikhroli West,
Mumbai-400079, Rep.by its person Incharge.
4.The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Town Centre-1, 6h Floor, Andheri-Kurla Road,
Andheri (East), MUMBAI-400059,
Rep. by its person incharge.
..Respondents/0pposite Parties
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Bhaskar Poluri
Counsel for Respondents M/s. KNV Radha Krishna - R4
QUORUM:
SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL, HON'BLE PRESIDENT,
SMT MEENA RAMANATHAN, HON'BLE LADY MEMBER
SRI K. RANGA RAO, HON'BLE MEMBER{JUDICIAL FRIDAY, TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO Order:(as per Hon'ble Sri.K.Ranga Rao, Member-J)
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/second opposite party under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the order dated 20.07.2018 of the District Consumer Forum at Adilabad in CC.No. 76 of 2015.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred 2 to as they were arrayed in the complaint.
3. The bricf facts of the case of the complaint are as follows:
SM-A700 mobile ) The complainant purchased Samsung phone on 23.03.2015 from opposite party No.l on payment of Rs.29,900/-, The cell phone was imported by opposite party No.2.
(i) At the time of purchase of the cell phone opposite party No.1 advised the complainant to get the mobile phone insured upon which the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1,999/- for the Cover Plus provided by opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3 through its service provide opposite party No.4 and on the online registration is completed with opposite party No.3, opposite party No.4 issued policy to the compliant.
(ii) As per the policy issued by the opposite party No.4.
opposite party No.4 Oriental Insurance Limited undertook to indemnify for fire and allied perils, storm, Tempest, Flood, Inundation, Earthquake, Tsunami, Theft, Burglary, Roit, Strike, Malicious Damage, Housebreaking, Accidental Damage, Liquid Damage, SIM mis-use and Mobile Bill Protection (Loss of Job) and damage.
(iv) That on 19.07.2015 the mobile phone of the Samsung A700 after attending to a call, got heated complainant and stopped functioning.Then the complainant approached opposite party No.1 and on his advise approached the local servicing centre at Adilabad where the complainant was informed that there is touch screen problem upon which the complainant contracted the customer care and sent email on 20.07.2015 to opposite party No.3, with claim form, damaged cell phone picture, invoice copy, certificate of insurance and a cancelled cheque copy to the opposite party No. 3. After near about 5 days the opposite party No.3 sent a mail to the complainant asking him to kindly mail again with detailed description that how the damage was happened and with clear image which shows the IMEl number clearly and the complainant received a call from them to give any reason as to how the mobile phone was damaged.
(v) Thereafter the complainant again emailed another claim form adding some details as per the request of the opposite partY No.4 on 04.08.2015, but surprisingly the opposite party N0.+ SCT a mail on 07.08.2015 repudiating the claim.
of the cell phone (vi The complainant due to malfunctioning Samsung A700 suffered a lot. There is a touch screen problem and manufacture defect. The the phone got heated was a cell complainant getting the touch screen replaced on payment of such the opposite Rs.7,720/- inspite of coverage of insurance as parties are jointly responsible to pay the same.
a defective cell phone
vii) The opposite party has supplied No.3 and 4 has undertakenh to the complainant. The opposite party to indemnify the damage.
a n amount of Rs.29,900/-
(vii) The Complainant has spent for the purchase of cell phone and spent Rs. 7,720/- for the and even after spending a lot of replacement of the touch screen but on the other hand he amount the complainant could not enjoy The acts of the opposites has to face mental tension and agony.
service.
parties amount to deficiency in
(ix) Therefore the complainant prays. the Hon'ble District return the cell phone amount Forum to direct the opposite party to defective cell phone with a new of Rs.29,900/- or else replace the and 4 to refund the one and further to direct opposite party No.3 and also grant composition of touch screen amount of Rs.7,720/-
him for the ends of RS. 50,000/- towards the mental agony to justice.
4. The opposite party No.l filled the counter contending that the Hon'ble District complainant concealed certain facts before of the Insurance policy take advantage Consumer Forum just to the sympathy.
Forum to gain the Hon 'ble and misleading party No,1 is that the opposite No.1 submits Opposite party private India Electronics, authorized shop of Samsung an out let mobiles, at Smart phone Samsung limited., having the business of Adilabad.
submits that the
further
The opposite party No.1
Model No.A700, Samsung
a Mobile
complainant purchased
of Rs.29,900/-, A
bill was
amount
Company on 23.03.2015 for an
period of one year,
issued to him, covering the warranty
can be got repaired
at the
mentioning that, if any defect is found it
where
authorized service centre of Samsung Company any
the copy of the
including the one located at Adilabad by producing purchased Mobile Bill.
23.03.2015 The complainant while purchasing the mobile on asked for Insurance cover for the said cell phone. As per his Micro Indian Private request they explained him that the company Limited has launched the policy cover to the branded mobile, on the premium amount of Rs.1,999/- for a specific period of time. The leaf let of the Insurance Cover issued by Ingram Micro India private limited along with broacher containing guidelines of terms and conditions were provided to the complainant. The amount of Rs. 1999/- paid by the complainant was also remitted to Ingram Micro India Company for processing and issuarnce of policy to the complainant from opposite party No.4 oriental Insurance Company Private Limited., The Opposite party No.1 further submits that the complainant himself has filled up the policy application forms and completed the required formalities after purchasing mobile from opposite party No.1 and sent it directly to opposite party No. 3 and made correspondence directly with said company. He got the policy issued by the opposite party No.4, containing the terms and 5 conditions executed by the Insurance Company as mentioned by the complainant in his claim petition.
are not Opposite party No.1 further submits that they The bound for the defects in the mobiles, as the mobile, they are the warranty, for Selling, is packed in a Sealed Box and covered by authorized service a period of one year. It can be repaired at the free of cost on centre, of the Samsung Company anywhere on of major defects or production of the bill of the mobile. In case authorized service centre of problems found in the mobile, used to send back the Samsung Company existed at Adilabad, witha new one to the mobile to the firm, for replacement of mobile No.1 is not having any concerned customers. The opposites party responsibilities for the damages/replace or replacement of mobiles, after purchased by the customers.
With the above contentions of the opposite party No.1 Consumer Forum to discharge opPposite prayed the Hon'ble District complainant in the interest of justice, as party No.1 from the valid opposite party No.1 is dragged in this c a s e without any reasons and fault.
denying
counter the
5. The opposite party No.2 filed the material allegations of the complainant except those specifically admitted.
is one of the The opposite party No.2 submits that Samsung manufactures of the electronic products like mobile leading phones, laser printers including computer peripherals and has got a very strong Research and Development and base. The products of Samsung are of the highest quality and it will never sell any product which is defective including manufacturing defects and poor workmanship. The product also goes through a rigid quality control check before releasing in the market.
6submits that the compliant is n not The opposite party No.2 o maintainable either in law or on facts as there is neither deficiency of service nor manufacturing defect.
that it appears from The opposite party No.2 further submits condition to pleadings that the handset was brought in a damaged this opposite party for servicing. The handset was alleged to have been purchased on 23.03.2015. As the cell phone is in damaged Condition, the warranty is void and moreover the Insurançe Policy issued by the opposite party No.3 and 4 is in existence. The entire grievance of the complaint is against the opposite party No.3 and
4. The opposite party No.2 submits that there are no pleadings with regard to the deficiency of service or manufacturing defect in Tespect of the said mobile. The repudiation of the claim which is challenged by the complainant in the CC is only in respect of the opposite party No.3 and 4 which is nothing to do with the opposite party No.2 herein. The opposite party No.2 is no way responsible and arraying opposite party NO.2 in the CC is not sustainable.
With the above contentions opposite party No.2 prays for the dismissal of the complaint against the opposite party No.2 and to pass such other or further orders as deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
The opposite party No.3 and 4 are made ex-parte.
6. Before the District Forum, the Complainant filed his evidence Affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.Al to A6. The opposite Party No.1 filed documents which are marked as Ex.B1 and B2.
7. The District Forum after hearing the arguments of both sides and after examining the material borne by the record allowed complaint directing opposite party No. 1 and 2 jointly or severally to replace the defective cell phone or pay an amount of Rs.
29,900/- and further directed opposite party No. 3 and 4 jointly or severally to refund the touch screen amount of Rs.7,720/- and 1 Rs.10,000/- ana to pay also directed the opposite party No.2 tne to 10,000/- as compensation oPposite party No.4 to pay 1or the order within 4 weeks from the date of complainant initiate complainant is at liberty to compliance, failing which the Protection Act Consumer available under proceedings as per law 1986.
appellant/opposite party
the
8. Aggrieved by the said order,
with the following grounds.
No.2 preferred this appeal, to law,
Consumer Forum is contrary
T h e order of the District
of the case.
evidence and probabilities this
has erred in fastening the liability on
T h e District Forum of
fundamentals
the
is in violation of
appellant and the
same
No.2.
made against opposite
party
the law when no case is order.
a reasoned
District Forum has failed to pass
The and 4
opposite party No. 3
When the District Forum ordered
the issue of replacing
to refund the touch s c r e e n amount,
amount of Rs. 29,900
or to pay the
the defective cell phone
double benefit
amounts to grant of
does not arise and
same
to the complainant.
issued by
to appreciate the policy
The District Forum failed
is covered and the
wherein the risk
opposite party No.4
to settle the claim but
the opposite
Insurance Company, has
fastened with any liability. party NO.2 cannot be that the grievance of T h e District Forum failed to appreciate the Complainant is basically against opposite party No.3 No.2 is and 4 as such fastening liability on opposite party erroneous.
The District Forum failed to appreciate that there is no
to damage to. the mobile as the
dispute with regard
received an email from
complainant himself admits that he form with opposite party No.3 asking him to mail the claim detailed description as to how damage has happened and clear image which shows IMEI number and the complainant had complied with the same on 04.08.2015.
.The District Forum ought to have seen that no liability can be on appellant opposite party No.2 as there is neither 8 manufacturing defect nor any tion of deficiency allegati No.2.
service on the part of the opposite party .With the above grounds of the appeal opposite party No.2 and to set aside the order of the dhe prays to allow the appeal District Forum.
received
9. Written Arguments of respondent/complainant No.2 through past. Heard arguments of Appellant/opposite party
10. that arises for consideration is whether the The point impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?
11 Considered arguments on both sides, perused the entire material borne by the record and the same manifest that it is an undisputed fact that the complainant purchased Samsung mobile phone Samsung-A700 from opposite party No. l1 for an amount of Rs.29,000/- on 23.03.2015 under exhibit.A1 retail invoice/bill opposite party No.2 is the importer of said cell phone, opposite party No.3 provided Ex:A2 cover plus to the compliant on his paying of Rs. 1,999/- and on the completion of the online registration, opposite party No.4 oriental Insurance Company issued Ex:A3 Insurance policy.
12. It is the case of the compliant that on 19.07.2015 after he attended to a call, his mobile cell phone got heated and stopped functioning.
13. It is the fact that the complainant approached opposite party No.1 who in turn advised him to approach the authorized service centre of Samsung located in Adilabad. Then the complainant Samsung of wherein the approached the authorized service centre the cell phone of the engineer Sri. N.Malikarjun after examining told the complainant there is touch screen problem to complainant Ex: A6 is the copy of the the said cell phone of the complainant.
made by the complainant acknowledgement of the services request 9 at the authorized service centre of Samsung at Adilabad and the same shows that the complainant approached the said authorized service centre on 04.08.2015 and the problem of the touch screen to problem of the said cell phone of the complainant was attended by the engineer Sri. N. Malikarjun i.e., touch pad damaged and tne same was repaired by collecting an amount of RS. 7,/20/-
also the
Ex.A6 bears the signature of the complainant and
These facts are
concerned of Samsung customer services centre.
aiso not disputed.
the
the compliant it is
14. As per the pleadings and evidence of further specific case of the complainant that in view of the touch care and sent email on SCreen problem he contacted customer cell claim form, damaged 20.07.2015 to opposite party No.3, with cancelled certificate of Insurance and phone picture, invoice copy, check copy to the opposite party No.3.
mail asking the After five days opposite party No.3 sent a
15. detailed claim form again with complainant to kindly mail the and with clear image description that how the damage happened clearly and further he also which shows the "IMEI" number to give any reason received a call from them (opposite party No.3) Thereafter he again emailed as to how the mobile was damaged.
the request of the another claim form adding some details a s per the opposite opposite party No.3 on 04.08.2015. But, surprisingly the claim.
party No.3 sent a mail on 07.08.2015 repudiating The complainant got marked Ex:A3 Gadget Insurance policy
16. claim form, Ex: A4 certificate of Insurance of Gadget Insurance and Ex:A5 copy of the mail received from opposite party No.3. in substantiate the above facts.
support of his version and to Ofcourse the above facts are also not disputed by opposite parties No.1 and 2.
17. A perusal of Ex:A3 shows that initially the complainant sent the claim form to opposite party No.3 by just mentioning "hand set damaged, but he has not mentioned the inns and outs as to how site pan.
the handset was damaged. So quite naturally opposite party Ne has sent Ex:A5 email to the complainant asking him to nit claim form again with detailed description as to how the darnas occurred to the hand set. Ex:A3 claim form and Ex:A5 mail are only marked by the complainant. Ex:A5 mail copy sent to the complainant by opposite party No.4 shows that the claim of the complainant is repudiated under exclusion clause 12 whichis loss or damage caused by incorrect storage, poor maintenance." Centre representative would conform otherwise with due substantiation.
18. Ex:A5 also contains a note in bold which is extracted below:
NOTE: You are being given one more opportunity to substantiate, decision is taken at our end. Your representation/clarification in case we have no response from you within two weeks from the date above without further advices from us.
19 At this juncture it is relevant to refer to Ex:A4 certificate of Insurance for Gadget Insurance (Insurance Policy) issued by opposites party No.4 oriental Insurance Company to the complainant for his cell phone. A perusal of Ex:A4 policy shows that the coverage of the Insurance policy to the cell phone of the complainant starts from 23.03.2015 on which date the complainant purchased the cell phone and paid an amount of Rs.1,999/- to opposite party No.3 for the issuance of Insurance policy by the opposite party No.4 and the period of the policy is for one year from start date of registration with Ingram Micro opposite party No.3 which is 23.03.2015. At this juncture it is also germane to mention that Ex:B1 cover plus and Ex:B2 Gadget Insurance Policy claim forms are marked on behalf of opposite parties No.1 and 2.
20. Ex:B1 cover plus contains the general terms and conditions. As per clause 6 of Ex:B1 refers to Insurance and same makes it clear that in the event of any claim, documents with complete information are to be sent along with the claim form as the same will be required by the Insurer to process the claim.
21. Clause No.6.2 of Ex:B1 cover plus makes it further clear that in the event of any defect in the mobile device that is in the event when there is a mall function in the device, the customer, 48 hours complainant herein should intimate Ingram Micro within of the of the incident and only approach authorized service centre brand. The customer should also take an estimate of expenses service being incurred against such a defect from authorized center.
22. Further the customer shall take two pictures one high "IMEI" (if possible).
The estimate lighting the defect and the other of replaced and costs should detail the type of loss, parts being collect all these documents, complete labour. The customer should of of how the event the claim form, giving a detailed description to IM cover loss or "the damage herein" occurred, send a scan copy of or uploadthe same in claim page plus in at ingrammicro.com clear that it is the www.ingrammicro.com. It is further made cell phone authorized service centre that has to certify that the defective is defective and to send purchased by the customer for replacing with a new one.
cell phone to the Samsung company party No.3, as per the .
23. In the case on hand though opposite version of the complainant asked the complainant to kindly own the detailed description a s to how mail the claim form again with to the cell phone, the complainant the damage that has happened has again emailed another claim form except stating that he the request of opposite party No.3, he adding some details as per to what has not filed the copy of the said claim form to show as details he has furnished with regard to as to how the damage the claim form got marked by happened to the cell phone. Ex:A3 is the complainant in support of his claim, where in expect has not mentioning that "hand set damaged" the complainant furnished the details of the damage to the cell phone. Moreover it is the consistent version of opposite parties No.1 and 2 that the 12 complainant brought the cell phone in the damaged condit:
the authorized service centre of the Samsung company. At the co cost of repetition, it is to be high lighted once again that it is the authorized person or the service engineer at the authorized service centre of the Samsung company that has to examine and certify about defective nature of the cell phone and further if he finds that the cell phone is defective, he is the person who has to send the same to the Samsung company for the replacement of the same with a new one. The complainant except stating that after attending to a call on 19.07.2015 the cell phone got heated and stopped functioning, has not furnished any other details. Ofcourse as per advice of opposite party No.1, he approached the authorized service centre of Samsung company located at Adilabad. Here it is noteworthy to mention that as per the complainant the cell phone got heated and stopped functioning on 19.07.2015. But Ex:A6 acknowledgment of service request shows that the complainant approached the authorized service centre in Adilabad on 04.08.2015, this shows that there is a gap of 16 days between the alleged incident of cell phone got heated and stopped functioning and the complainant approaching the authorized service centre. It is needless to say that use of cell phone has become a diurnal necessity for the persons who use cell phone. If the cell phone of the complainant veritably stopped functioning the complainant ought not to have waited for 16 days for approaching the authorized service centre of Samsung company in Adilabad. It is also the undisputed version of the complainant that the engineer at the authorized service centre of Samsung company in Adilabad told him that the touch pad of the cell phone of the complainant was damaged. The service engineer by name Malikarjun attended/repaired the same and the complainant paid Rs.7,720/ for the same. Ex.A6 acknowledgment of service request got marked by the complainant in support of his claim but the same does not disclose any other problem to the cell phone of the complainant much less the one alleged by the complainant to the effect that the cell phone is defective. It is the version of the complainant that the cell phone got heated due to manufacture defect. But the same is not reflected in x.A6. The touch screen problem of the cel 13 phone of the complainant was resolved on 04.08.2015 as Ex:A6 shows that the repair of the touch screen/touch pad damaged, was completed on the said date. As seen from the material borne by the record, it is the grievance of the complainant that even despite Ex:A4 Insurance policy was in force by the date of the touch screen repair the authorized Samsung service centre collected a sum of RS.7,720/- from him for the repair of the touch screen and further his claim was repudiated by opposite parties No.3 and.4. This shows the grievances of the complainant is against the opposite from him for parties No.3 and 4 for the collection of Rs.7,720/-
repairing the touch screen problem.
record the
24. As seen from the material borne by the
of
of service on the part
complainant has not alleged any deficiency party No. 1 advised to the oppositeparties No.1 and 2. Opposite centre and the authorized service Complainant to approache them. The complainant complainant approached accordingly mechanical cell phone got heated due to expect alleging that either before the District defect, has not placed any material substantiate the Commission to Commission or before the State evidence substantiating same. Hence in the absence of satisfactory of the manufacture defect of the cell phone, we a r e the so called not entitled to claim for return of the considered opinion that he is the cell phone with a one, new cell phone amount are for replacing No.1 and 2 shall not be and more particularly opposite parties fastened with any liability much less as ordered by the District the above aspects o n the Commission which has not appreciated force by the Ex:A4 Insurance policy w a s in correct lines. Further a s considered opinion that the date of the repair, we are of the which for the refund ofa s u m of Rs.7,720/-
complainant is entitled
of cell phone at the
the touch screen
he paid for repair of
in Adilabad.
authorized service centre of Samsung In view of our a foregoing discussion, we are of the
25. is to be allowed for the ends of considered opinion that this appeal order of the District Commission. justice by modifying the 14 is modify as follows:-
26. The order of District Forum District Forum that opposite That the direction of the to replace the defective parties No.1 and 2 jointly or severally of Rs.29,900/- and further cell phone or pay a n amount s u m of Rs. 10,000/- as a opposite party No.2 shall pay a and the rest of compensation to the compliant is set aside, No.3 the order of the District Forum that opposite parties amount of and 4 jointly and severally to refund touch screen Rs.7,720/- and opposite party No.4 to pay Rs.10,000/- as Compensation to the complainant is hereby confirmed.
27. Accordingly the appeal is disposed off. Each party shal bear their own costsS.
28. The appellant is entitled to with draw the statuary amount lying to credit above appeal, Thecase. along with interest if any.
1