Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/32/2016

Sai Sankar Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Maa Durga Mobile Shop - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Chinmaya Kumar Das

27 Jan 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 32 OF 2016

                 Sai Sankar Panda, aged about 20 years,

                 S/o- Sudhir Panda, At- Dhobadiha,

                 P.O- Keonjhargarh, P.S- Town,

                 Dist- Keonjhar…………………………………………………………..Complainant

                                   Vrs.

            1. Maa Durga Mobile Shop,

                 At-SB.I. Road, Keonjhar,

                 At/P.O- Keonjhargarh, P.S- Town,

                 Dist- Keonjhar

             2. S.S. Enterprises,

                 At- Madhapur Squire, N.H. 6, Keonjhar,

                 At/P.O- Keonjhargarh, P.S- Town,

                 Dist- Keonjhar ……………………………………………………………Op. Parties

 

PRESENT: SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SAMANTARA, PRESIDENT

                  SMT. B. GIRI, MEMBER (W)

                 Advocate for the Complainant: Sri Chinmaya Kumar Das

                 Advocate for OP1: set exparte

                 Advocate for OP2: Sri Amar Ku. Pattnaik & S. Sahoo

_____________________________________________________________________________________________  

DATE OF FILING: 18.07.2016                                                                                   DATE OF ORDER: 27.1.2017

SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SAMANTARA, PRESIDENT

1. In adumbrate, the complainant purchased one Samsung brand Mobile set of Model No.SM-J700F from MAA DURGA MOBILE, Kendujhar, vide bill No.162, dt.8.12.2015 against a consideration Rs.15,900/- with expressed warranty.

2. The complainant averred, the handset crop up defect on dt.14.6.2015, and for rectification intimated the matter to the retailer and authorized service centre as the mobile set runs one year period of warranty.

3. Also submitted, the service centre issued one Job card bearing Sl. No.11127, dating 14.06.2016, latter resile from his responsibility and deferred days to repair. Non rectification of the defect continues till the date. 

4. Complainant also sent pleader notice to the OPs in highlight of the issues, but no one turn to take step in either way of replacement, refund and replenishment in compliance of warranty provision.

5. Further submitted, the defect is within the knowledge of the service centre that “Any key is not working, Such admissible defect needs urgent look, but the service centre in not competent to remove the defect, not issued advice note to the authorized dealer or retailer to replace the tainted product, thus made the case to seek relief under the provision of the act Relied on Job sheet and purchase bill along with affidavit.

6. In pursuant to notice, the OP1 neither appear nor made any version.

7. The OP2 made submission in admission that being an authorized service centre of Samsung Mobile Company and received handset the damage as raised is not covered under terms and condition as laid down. Again averred the defects surfaced which can be solved by the Samsung Company, BBSR Head office, Odisha.

8. The OP 2 also admitted, the defect as crop up on the mobile set has been intimated through Email on dt.22.6.2016 and OP2 is not authorized to take replace except beyond repairing.   

9. Further submitted, the complainant intentionally damages the set in submerging in water, which not covered under the warranty. No neglect in rendering service or deficiency of service in issue against this OP and the OP is not liable to pay under deficiency of service, so the case urgent a dismissal in limine.  

10. Heard the learned counsels and perused the materials on record and relevant documents.

11. We come across, it is fact, the handset has been purchased against the consideration and on the issue, no dispute persists to note.

12. The complainant purchased the mobile set on dt.8.12.2015 against Rs.15,900/- sum consideration. The functional defect surfaced on 14.6.2016 intimation lodged with service centre and Job card issued, the warranty extends till 7.12.2016, thus the case no way suffers any barred of limitation, cause of action and jurisdiction, thus amply maintainable.

13. On the other hand, we perused the written version as filed by the authorized service centre and it is laughable, the OP has simultaneously blowed hot and cold.   In one hand speaking, the service centre lacks authority to such type respond and the other way has intimated by Email to the competent authority, so the case in each way is maintainable, thereby it is clinching evidential, service rendered by the centre attracts payable at company’s end. Again it is settled law that “Company cannot charge for jobs within warranty period”- Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs. Narayan Singh Walia- 2013(3) CPR 119(H.P) under same principle, the defect of “Main PBA” (Part No.- GH82-10315A) needs to be replaced forth – with and does not warrant a charge, besides it is the duty and responsibility of the dealer, retailer and service centre to rendered impeccable service in upkeep of brand value and respect to terms & conditions.

14.  We assumed all the stake holders failed to rendered service as per the consumer protection Act that defines defect and deficiency. The product carries fault, imperfection and shortcoming in quality so also the service centre in not rendering service which has committed the deficiency i.e. inadequacy in the quality, the nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained is abysmally not up to the mark. Thus it evidential and more substantative the complainant sustained grief & mental agony and entitled for compensation.                            

15. Our same view is get support from the decision:-

(i) It is duty of manufacturer/ dealer to repair defects in a product during warranty period within a reasonable time- Krishna Kumar Sahu Vs. Manager, Jai Shri Electronics-2010(1) CPR 149 (Chhattisgarh).

          In view of the above made discussion, we find the parties in the case are jointly and severally liable to pay the deficient in performance of service.

 

O R D E R

      The OPs is hereby directed to provide a brand new handset of same model, brand & specification and of same cost to the petitioner within 30 days of this Order, in alternate the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.15,900/- (Fifteen thousand nine hundred) along with a sum of Rs.1000/- (One thousand) towards compensation & inclusive of cost for the mental agony sustained, within the above time frame, failing @ 6% interest per annum will be accrued on the entire amount till realization.

                Copy of the Order be made available to the parties as per rule.

                File be consigned to record room.

                 Pronounced, 27^th January 2017.    

                                                                                                                                                                

                  I agree                                                                                     

             (Smt. B. Giri)                                                                                       (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

            Member (W)                                                                                                         President                     

         DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                                                             DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                             

 

                                                                                Dictated & Corrected by me

                                                                              (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

                                                                                          (President)

                                                                                     DCDRF, Keonjhar