SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. REGISTERED OFFICE AT A Vs. SAURABH KAPOORIA & 2 ORS. BALAJI PROPERTIES S/O SATYANARIAN KAPOORAI, R/O PAVTA JODHPUR RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Sh. Saurabh Kapooria, the complainant in this case, purchased a Samsung Mobile Note-2 on 15.11.2012 for a sum of Rs.35,500.00 from Varun Johri Plaza, OP1, the local dealer of Samsung and Nihal Techno Services, OP2, the authorised Service Center and Samsung India Pvt., OP3, the manufacturer of mobile handsets. The said mobile phone had a warranty period of one year. The mobile booting developed problem on 08.05.2013. It was informed to OP2, which refused to repair the said set and rectify the problem, on the ground that the warranty period of the said mobile had expired. Legal Notice was sent and ultimately a complaint was filed before the District Forum with the prayer that the complainant had undergone financial, physical and mental agony due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and claimed a sum of Rs.70,000.00 against the OPs, jointly and severally.

(2.) The District Forum dismissed the complaint. An appeal was preferred before the State Commission. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the warranty period had not yet expired. The defence of the OPs was that as the complainant had downloaded unauthorised applications / software and, therefore, it developed booting problem which was a violation of the terms and conditions and the warranty, therefore, the handset was considered as out of warranty and the defect was not repairable, free of cost. However, this finding did not find mention in the job sheet. The OPs also produced a Service Guide, Ex.R-1 which mentioned that if ‘custom’ appears either in ‘current binary’ or in ‘system status’, then the handset becomes out of warranty. It was also stated by the Technician before the District Forum that ‘custom’ appeared in ‘system status’ as a result of downloading of unauthorised software.

(3.) The State Commission came to the conclusion that the above said fact was never informed to the complainant. Again, such terms and conditions were never explained to the complainant. Further, the OPs did not specifically furnish the list of names of softwares or applications which were prohibited or were unauthorised and were never communicated to the complainant. It was submitted that as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s authorities, reported in 1996 (6) SCC 428 (United India Insurance Vs. MKJ Corporation) and 2000 (2) SCC 734 (M/s. Modern Insulator Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.) , the Exclusion Clause must be explained to the insured. The complainant is not bound by the terms and conditions of the Service Guide. While accepting the appeal, the State Commission ordered, as under:-