Tripura

West Tripura

CC/7/2015

Shri Biswanath Bhattacharya. - Complainant(s)

Versus

CEO, Samsung Mobile & 2 others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. H.Das, Mr.S.Deb, Miss.K.Roy.

03 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-   07 of  2015

Biswanath Bhattacharya,
S/O- Sri Rabindra Ch. Bhattacharya,
East of Circuit House, Kunjaban Colony, 
Abhoynagar, New Capital Complex,
West Tripura.                                 ........Complainant.
    

         ______VERSUS______

1. CEO, Samsung Mobile,
SCO-35, Huda Main Market,
Gurgaon Sector-3, Gurgaon-122001,
Haryana.

2. Proprietor of Samsung Service Centre,
91, H.G. Basak Road, Agartala.

3. Proprietor, Star Vision,
    1st Floor, Datta Super Market, 
    Agartala- 799001.            ........Opposite Parties.
            

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant         : Smt. Kalyani Roy,
                  Sri Haripada Das and 
                  Smt. Sarama Deb,
                  Advocates.                
                                             
For the O.Ps            : None Appeared.

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  03.11.15

J U D G M E N T

        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sri Biswanath Bhattacharya of Kunjaban Colony, New Capital Complex, Agartala against the O.Ps, namely CEO, Samsung Mobile, Gurgaon, Haryana  and 2 others over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps.
    
2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant purchased a mobile set of Samsung company of model no- Galaxy S 5 on 05.08.14 at Rs.50,000/-. After few days of purchase the mobile set started giving problem. In the first week of September, 2014, he went to the showroom of the Samsung company situated at Agartala and on the advice of the seller he placed the mobile set with the authorized service centre of the company. As asked by the service engineer of the company, he left the mobile set with them for repair. Inspite of keeping the mobile set with them for a reasonable time, they  failed to repair it. After a long delay the service provider returned the set to him when it was found that the earlier problem still persisted. As  advised by the service engineer, he met the CEO and on his request he again placed the mobile set with them for repair. But it was returned to him with same problem. After long persuasions the company replaced the defective mobile set by a new one on 22.11.14. After taking delivery of the new mobile set it was found that the video system of the new set was not working properly. It got hung for every now and then. The complainant was not able either to receive or make any call. Finding no alternative, the complainant visited service centre of the company on 23.11.14 to rectify the defect of the mobile set but it yielded no result. He made several correspondence with the company through E-mails with a request to replace the defective set by a new one. Ultimately one Ms Aswathi Nair, the CEO of the company, called him on 27.11.14 and assured him that they would refund the entire amount of the mobile set within 15 days. But eventually they did not keep their words. The company neither repaired the defective mobile set nor refunded its price. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.Ps constituted negligence and deficiency in rendering service. Hence, this complaint.
    
3.        The O.Ps No.2 and 3 did not contest the case despite receipt of notices and hence, the case has been proceeded exparte against them by an order dated 18.03.15. 

4.        Though the O.P. No.1, the CEO Samsung Mobile recorded appearance through their engaged counsel, yet he chose not to file written objection and contest the case. Accordingly, the case has also been proceeded exparte against him by an order dated 23.05.15. 

5.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:-
        Exhibit 1- Cash memo dated 05.08.14,
        Exhibit 2 Series- 45 number of E-mails.
            
FINDINGS:
6.        The point that would arise for consideration in this proceeding is whether the O.Ps were negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant.
        
7.        We have already heard argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant. Also perused the pleading, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant meticulously.
8.        It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a Samsung mobile set of model no. Galaxy S 5 at Rs.50,000/- from the O.P. No.1. After few days of purchase the mobile set was having problems. He placed the mobile set with the authorized service centre of the company. After long persuasions the mobile set was replaced by the company by a new one. It is also pleaded by the complainant that soon after receipt of the new mobile set it was found that its video system was not working and it got hung. He was not even able to receive and make call from the mobile set. He made several correspondence with the O.P. No.1 through E-mails (Exhibit- 2 Series) but to no avail. Ultimately the CEO of the company called him on 27.11.14 and assured him that they would refund the price of the mobile set within 15 days but ultimately he did not keep his words.

9.        The complainant as P.W. 1 in his evidence has stated similar thing as averred in his pleading. We do not find any ground to disbelieve the statements made by the complainant. The O.P. side has neither led primary nor secondary evidence to controvert the averments of the complainant. Until contrary is proved, we are to rely upon the evidence adduced by the complainant. From the evidence of the complainant we are satisfied that the mobile set so replaced by the O.P. no.1 was suffering from manufacturing defect otherwise soon after taking delivery of the set its video system would not have gone out of order. Failure to repair or replace the defective mobile set by a new one is certainly a major deficiency in service on the part of the manufacturer. It is pleaded by the complainant that he suffered a lot for having failed to use the service of the mobile set for a long time. In this situation, it is needless to say that the conduct of the O.P. No.1 very much attracts deficiency in service and hence the complainant is liable to be compensated by the O.P. No.1 for the loss suffered by him.

10.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed. The O.P. No.1 is directed to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant by a new one of the same model or refund the price of the mobile set within 45(Forty five) days from today. This apart, the O.P. No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment caused to him by them with Rs.3000/-(Rupees three Thousand) as cost of litigation. If the O.P. No.1 fails to comply with the direction made above within the above said period, the amount payable  will carry interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of presentation of the complaint before this Forum on 13.01.15 till the payment is made in full.        

11.                  A N N O U N C E D

 

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.