DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

                                                    CONSUMER  COMPLAINT  CASE NO. 62 OF 2016

Ajay Kumar Singh,

S/O: Sriram Singh,

R/O: Mungapara, Infront of Hanuman Mandir,

PO/ PS/ Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha...........……………..……..………. Complainant.

                                           Versus 

1. Dharaniram Business Park,

Samsung Service Centre, 1sr Floor,

Infront of DAV Public School, Sarbahal Road,Jharsuguda,

PO/ PS/ Dist:Jharsuguda, Odisha.

2. Samsung India,

Represented through its Chairman,

Head Office, At- 35 HUDA Main Market,

Sector-31, Gurgaon-122001(Haryana).……….......................... Opp. Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                       P.K.Patel,Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party No.1                        Self.

For the Opp. Party No.2                        Self(Ex-Parte)

Present:- Shri Sundarlal Behera, President, Shri Santosh Kumar Ojha, Member, Smt. Anamika Nanda, Member(W).

Order dated 16.10.2017, Smt. Anamika Nanda, Member(W).

The complainant’s case in brief is that, he had purchased one mobile handset having model Samsung Galaxy-J-2 by paying-₹7,600/- only o dtd. 01.01.2017 from Konark Video, Authorised dealer.  In the month of March’2017 the said mobile got trouble which was repaired by the O.P.No.1.  In April’2017 the said mobile again started problem of its camera which was also repaired but after five days the screen touch of the said mobile again got trouble.  The complainant took the mobile to O.P.No.1 but the O.P.No.1 demanded Rs.2,952/- only towards repairing charges.  The mobile is under warranty period and the O.Ps are demanding repairing charges  which is the allegation of complainant , hence this case.

Being noticed through this Forum, the O.P.No. 2 appeared and filed written version where the O.P.No.1 kept silent in this case and stand ex-parte after being providing sufficient opportunities. The O.P No.2 submitted that the complainant has visited in the month of April 2017 and the O.P has repaired the said mobile handset to the full satisfaction of complainant. The O.P is ready to repair the mobile handset as per warranty condition and prayed the case to be dismissed.

Heard from the parties and gone through the case record. The complainant purchased the mobile handset on dtd. 01.01.2017 by paying Rs.7,600/- only. The said mobile handset defected two times within warranty period. The O.P rectified the defect in the month of April 2017 up to satisfaction of complainant but it has again defected and brought to the O.P on dtd.20.05.2017 where, as per job sheet it was found that the OCTA in liquid was in damaged condition which voids warranty conditions. But the O.Ps failed to produce the said warranty condition.

On the above facts and circumstances the said mobile handset has found defects several times within warranty period and the complainant is eligible for relief. Hence we are in considered opinion to allow the complaint petition with following directions to the O.Ps.

ORDER

1. The O.Ps are hereby jointly and severally directed to repair the said defected mobile handset of complainant without any charges along with any cost of parts.

2. The O.Ps. are hereby jointly and severally further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 700/- (Rupees seven hundred) only to the complainant towards harassment including litigation costs.

Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today on this the 16^th of  October 2017 copy of this order shall be communicated to the parties as per Rule.

 I Agree.         

 S.K.Ojha, Member                        S.L.Behera, President                    A.Nanda, Member(W)                                                                                                             

Dictated and corrected by me.

                                                    A.Nanda, Member(W)