Date of filing:- 13/05/2020.

Date of Order:-15/04/2024.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

B A R G A R H (ODISHA).

Consumer Complaint No. 38 of  2020.

            Sri Rohit Kumar Nayak, S/o Samir Nayak, aged about 20(twenty) years, Resident of Dam Colony, Bargarh, Ward No. 16(sixteen), Po/Ps/Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh.            

                                                                                    .....       ....     .....           Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

1. The Manager, Samsung Electronic Pvt. Ltd., 6^th Floor, DLF Centre Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110001.
2. The Zonal Manager, Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., Rasulgarh over-bridge, Sector-A, Rasulgarh, Plot No. 65, N.H.5, Bhubaneswar-751007 (Odisha)
3. The Samsung Service Centre, Bargarh, C/o Anil Associates, Ist Floor, Suravi Hotel, Near Behera Nursing Home, Bargarh Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh, Odisha-768028.
4. The Proprietor, S.V.M.Mobile, Main Road, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh-768028(Odisha).              

                                                .....       .....       .....   Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-            Sri M.K.Satapathy, Advocate with associates.

For the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 :-     Sri S.K.Mohanty, Advocate with associates.

For the Opposite Party No.3 & 4 :-     Ex-parte.

                                                            -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra               .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agrawal             .....            .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.15/04/2024.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Anju Agrawal, Member(w):-   

1)         The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant for his personal use has purchased on Dt. 18-05-2019 a Samsung Galaxy Note Edge model mobile set bearing IMEI No. 355216/06/12579819 by paying Rs. 65,000/-(Rupees sixty five thousand)only. The Opposite Party No.1(one) is the importer and exporter of Samsung Brand Mobile set, the Opposite Party No.2(two) is the Zonal head, Opposite Party No.3(three) is the after sale service provider and Opposite Party No.1(one) is the retail seller of the aforesaid product. After using the product for some months it was found that the set was unable to hold charge and was found hanging. The Complainant placed his complaint before the Opposite Party No.3(three) in the first week of December 2019 to solve the problem but the Opposite Party No.3(three) denied to entertain the complaint of Complainant by saying that it has some manufacturing defect and the company had already quit production of such brand and services. The Complainant has raised his grievance before the Opposite Party No.2(two) over telephone but it was no effect. As the mobile set of the Complainant is under the period of warranty the Opposite Parties did not tried to rectify the defect. On Dt. 17-02-2020, a pleader's notice was sent to the Opposite Parties for which the Opposite Parties replied suppressing the truth.

            Being aggrieved by the deficiency in service of the Opposite Parties the Complainant filed this complaint before this Commission.

2)         The case of the Opposite Parties is that the Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) has jointly filed their version and submitted that the Complainant has purchased a mobile on Dt. 15-05-2019 on payment of considering is denied as no documents are supported with the complaint. It is further denied that the Complainant during Ist week of December-2019 on production of service appeared Opposite Party No.3(three) and the Opposite Party No.3(three) reported same having manufacturing defect and the production of the mobile model is closed, the Complainant is at liberty to lodge complaint in toll free number of the manufactures. The Opposite Party No. 1(one) and No.2(two) has further submitted that wherever a complaint is received one reference number is provided but no such compliant is receive by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties on receipt of Pleader's notice Dt. 17-02-2020 replied to provide information regarding complaint number date etc but the Complainant remained silent.

            There is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1(one) and  No.2(two), the case to be dismissed against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two).

3)         The case of the Opposite Party No.3(three) and Opposite Party No.4(four) is that the Opposite Party No.3(three) and Opposite Party No.4(four) did not appear before this Commission. Hence Opposite Party No.3 and Opposite Party No.4(four) are set ex-parte.

4)         After perusal of documents it reflects that the Complainant has purchased Samsung Galaxy Note Edge from Opposite Party No.4(four) on dt. 18-05-2019 bearing IMEI No. 355216/06/125798/9 from the Opposite Party No.4(four) by paying Rs. 65,000/-(Rupees sixty five thousand)only as consideration. The aforesaid mobile was found defective under warranty period and the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.3(three) but the problem was not rectified. On Dt. 17-02-2020 pleader notice was served to the Opposite Parties but the Opposite Parties replied to the effect that there is no documents regarding the aforesaid mobile's purchase and regarding the defect.

5)         The Complainant has filed the IMEI No. 355216/06/125798/9 which is International Mobile Equipment Identity and it is a unique number and Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) can easily access the information regarding the purchase of the aforesaid mobile, hence the plea taken by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) is not acceptable. The Opposite Party No.3(three) is liable to render after sale service to the Complainant when the aforesaid mobile is under the warranty period.

6)         Hence, the Opposite Party No.1(one), Opposite Party No.2(two) and Opposite Party No.3(three) are liable for not rectifying the problem of the aforesaid mobile when the mobile is under the warranty period. The Opposite Party No.4(four) is not liable for the negligence of Opposite Party No.1(one), 2(two) and 3(three)

            As discussed supra, the Complainant is entitled for relief claimed.

                                                            O  R  D  E  R

7)         The Complaint is allowed on contest against Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two), ex-parte against Opposite Party No.3(three) and dismissed against the Opposite Party No.4(four). The Opposite Party No.1(one), No.2(two) and No.3(three) are directed jointly and severally to replace Mobile set of Complainant “Samsung Galaxy Note Edge” with a new one or refund the cost of the cost of Mobile i.e. Rs. 65,000/-(Rupees sixty five thousand)only to the Complainant along with Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for deficiency in service and Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards litigation expenses within 30(thirty) days of this order, failing which, the entire awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.

8)         Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Commission to-day i.e.  Dt.15/04/2024 and the case is allowed against the Opposite Party No.1(one), No.2(two) and No.3(three) and disposed off.

                                                                                             Typed to my dictation

                                                                                              and corrected by me.

                                    I agree,                                               ( Smt. Anju Agrawal)

                                                                                                    M e m b e r(w).

                       (Smt. Jigeesha Mishra)

                              P r e s i d e n t.