Date of filing:- 27/03/2019.

Date of Order:-23/10/2019.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No. 11 of 2019.

            Satyanarayan Mishra, aged about 48(forty eight) years, S/o. Bhagabana Mishra, Occupation- Advocacy, R/o/Vill-Nigamananda Vihar, Ward No.1, P.o/P.s/Dist-Bargarh.                                                                     .....            .....       .....       .....       Complainant.

 -: V e r s u s  :-

1. The Managing Director, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, 6th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi -110001.
2. The Proprietor, Meher’s Mobile, Near Federal Bank, Gandhi Chowk, Bargarh, P.o./P.s/Dist-Bargarh-768028.                       .....       .....       .....       Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-            Sri P.Sahi, Advocate with others Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.1(one) :-    Sri S.K.Mohanty, Advocate with others Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.2(two):-     Ex-parte.

                                                            -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra       .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Ajanta Subhadarsinee             .....        .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.23/10/2019.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-

Brief Facts of the case –

            Being persued with the Provision U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the Complainant preferred to file the case before the Forum with the following allegation against the Opposite Parties.

            The case of the Complainant is that he purchased one cell phone, by the make and model Samsung Galaxy J4 on Dt.09.06.2018 by making payment of Rs.11,069/-(Rupees eleven thousand sixty nine)only against which he was issued with a money vide Receipt No.2146 by the Authorized Dealer of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and the same set was covered under the warranty period of one year on the said set and six month on the battery installed in it and on the charger, but during the subsistence of the warranty period the said set started giving trouble being hot while charging the same to which he reported before the Opposite Party No.2(two) for several time but he did not pay any heed to it and in the meantime on Dt.06.12.2018 while it was being charged it became too hot and on removing the charger the same was broken in and did not work and the same was also reported before the Opposite Party No.2(two), but in reply he advised the Complainant to purchase a new one in stead of taking any step to rectify the mistake or to replace the same as such seeing no other alternative served with him a Pleader Notice on Dt.13.12.2018 but to no result hence the cause of action in filing the case against the Opposite Party No.1(one) & No. 2(two) as in his view both are liable for deficiencies of service and unfair trade practice, and in support of his case has relied on the following documents:-

1. Original Money Receipt No.2146 Dt.9.06.2018 issued by the Opposite Party No.2.
2. Office copy of the Pleader Notice Dt.13.12.2018.
3. Original Postal Receipt.

            And has prayed before the Honorable Forum to issue a direction to the Opposite Parties to replace the hand set of the cell phone with a new one and to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only in lieu of compensation towards his mental agony and litigation expenses respectively.

            Having gone through the Complaint, the documents filed with the same and on hearing the concerned counsel the case was admitted and Notice was served upon the both the Opposite Party and in response both of them appeared and filed their version and so far as their averment made in their version is concerned it is a denial one, besides that also have denied the case of the Complainant on the ground that the same is not maintainable as has not been accompanied with any technical test or expert opinion and furthermore has claimed in their version that they are not liable for any action under the Act as has not been supplied with their required information with regard to the make model and the EMIE number and etc and have claimed that since it does not attracts the provision of the Act under the definition of deficiencies of service nor unfair trade practice, the same is liable to be dismissed .

            On perusal of materials available before the Forum, we feel it necessary to examine the case with the following issues .

1. Whether the case is maintainable under the Act before the Forum ?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as has been sought for ?

            While taking the Issue No.1(one) for our consideration we examined the materials available in the record and found that the Complainant has genuinely purchased the said hand set of cell phone from the Opposite Party No.2(two) and have been substantiated with the Money Receipt issued by him in favor of the Complainant and further has never denied with same allegation of the Complainant also it is found therein that he has never taken any steps to rectify the defects with same hand set nor has taken any steps to intimate about the same to the Opposite Party No.1(one) rather has advised him to purchase with a new one which clearly speaks of his attitude in non-rendering due service to their customer, secondly it was the bounden duty of the Opposite Party No.1(one) to take cognizance of the complain made by his customer at least after receiving Notice from the Advocate of the Complainant or from the Honorable Forum and knowing the matter of dispute and could have taken some steps to inquire in to the matter, had he been a vigilant manufacturer but has not done so in any manner in as much as could have sent his technical expert to examine with the complain of the Complainant but has not done so rather has flately denied it’s responsibility with different technical defects with the Complainant and have has filed it’s version for denied of being deficient which itself shows it’s callousness in rendering proper service to it’s customer furthermore the averments made by the Opposite Party No.1(one) in it’s version in Para No.6(six), wherein he has alleged against the Complainant that though he has replied the Pleader Notice of the Complainant and has asked to furnish some documents but as he did not provide the same has not given any service as can not be held to be deficient of rendering service, but such averment made by the Opposite Party speaks of his callousness as had he been interested in the problem of the Complainant with his hand set and rectification of the same he could have ascertained about the same from the Opposite Party No.2(two) even in case of the failure of the Complainant to provide such information but has tried to escape from his such responsibility which is a clear indication of the deficiencies in rendering the due service of the Complainant. And in view of such facts and circumstances we are of the consensus view that the Opposite Parties are very much deficient in rendering service to the Complainant for which both of them are jointly Liable for the action thereunder accordingly it is answered in favor of the Complainant.

            Secondly with regard to the claim of relief by the Complainant as we have already examined the Issue No.1(one) and have opined in favor of the Complainant and the practical difficulties faced by the Complainant due to want of a Cell Phone due to such deficient action of the Opposite Parties for which both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable, we are of the view that he is entitled for compensation and accordingly it is answered in his favor thus our order follows .

O  R  D  E  R

            Hence the Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to replace the hand set of the Complainant with a new one of the same or with similar quality and worth of cell phone or in the alternative refund him the cost of the same amounting to Rs.11,069/-(Rupees eleven thousand sixty nine)only with an interest @ 7% (seven percent) per annum from the date of filing of the case till to this order and also are directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand)only as compensation and Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only towards litigation expenses to the Complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, in default of which the total awarded amount would carry an interest @ 12 % per annum till the actual realization of the same and also would be liable for punitive measures in accordance with the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

            In the result the order is pronounced in the open Forum and the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties and the same is disposed off to-day i.e.on Dt.23.10.2019.

                                                                                                      Typed to my dictation

                                                                                                         and corrected by me.

                                                                                                     ( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)

                                                                                                                  P r e s i d e n t.           

                                                                  I agree,

                                                   ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)

                                                          M e m b e r (W)    

       Uploaded by

Sri Dusmanta Padhan

Office Assistant, Bargarh.