BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM (CAMP SITTING AT MUVATTUPUZHA).
Date of filing : 13/06/2014
Date of Order : 22/11/2014
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
C.C. No. 461/2014
Between
Manual Kolady, | :: | Complainant |
Kolady House, Cherpunkal. P.O., Pala – 686 575. | | (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661.) |
And
1. Branch Commercial Head, Samsung India Electronics Ltd., | :: | Opposite Parties |
378/2022, 2nd Floor, Joseph & Valentine Building, Subhash Chandra Bose Road, Kochi – 20. 2. Manager, M/s. Samsung, Smart Cafe T.B. Junction, M.C. Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661. | | (Op.pty 1 by Adv. P. Fazil, M/s. Lawyers United, 2nd Floor, Metro Plaza, Market Road, North, Kochi – 682 018.) (Op.pty 2 by Adv. A.K. Jayaprakash, Muvattupuzha.) |
O R D E R
V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant seeking direction against the opposite parties to replace the mobile handset purchased from the 2nd opposite party and manufactured by the 1st opposite party at a price of Rs. 50,000/- on 22-05-2014. The opposite parties filed their version stating that the disputed mobile handset is free from any manufacturing defect and the defects if any suggested by the complainant can be rectified free of cost.
2. No oral evidence is adduced by the complainant. Ext. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. Neither oral or documentary evidence adduced by the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party appeared through their counsel, but opted not to contest the matter. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties.
3. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, the mobile handset became defunct within 2 weeks from the date of purchase and in spite of repeated requests, the opposite parties could not repair the same due to its inherent manufacturing defect.
4. Ext. A3 goes to show that the complainant purchased a mobile handset from the 2nd opposite party on 22-05-2014 as evidenced by Ext. A3 at a price of Rs. 50,000/-, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. Ext. A1 and A4 would show that the mobile handset in dispute suffers from recurring defects, which would show that the mobile handset of the complainant suffers from manufacturing defect. No reason is forthcoming on the part of the opposite parties as to the reason for the recurring defects of the mobile handset. In that view of the above matter, we are of the firm view that the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the mobile handset with interest.
5. The primary grievance of the complainant having been met squarely and sufficiently, we refrain from awarding any compensation to the complainant.
6. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund the price of the mobile handset as per Ext. A3 to the complainant together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 22-05-2014 till realisation.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 22nd day of November 2014.
Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Forwarded/By order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of G-mail dt. 11-06-2014 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of E-mail to the op.pts. |
“ A3 | :: | Copy of cash bill dt. 22-05-2014 |
“ A4 | :: | Copy of service request dt. 04-06-2014 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
=========
