DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

CONSUMER  COMPLAINT  CASE NO. 19 OF 2014

                Rabindra Mahanand (34 Yrs),

                S/O- Narsingh Mahanand,

                R/O: Buromal, (Budapada),

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

Versus

1. Digital Lounge, Authorised Dealer of Samsung,

C/O –Hora Complex, Main Road, Jharsugda,

            PO/PS/Dist : Jharsuguda  Odisha.

2. M/S Shree Ganesh Enterprises

Authorised Samsung Service Centre,

At- Beheramal, Babashankar Complex, Jharsuguda,

PO/PS/Dist : Jharsuguda  Odisha PIN- 768204

3. The Customer Service Head

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

2^nd , 3^rd ,4^th, Floor , Tower – C,

Vipul Tech. Square, Sector – 43 ,Golf Course Road,

Gurgaon (Hariyana) PIN- 122002  .……….…………….…..…..…….Opp. Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                       Self.

For the Opp. Party                                          None (Ex-parte)

Date of Order: 25.08.2014

Present

                                                                               1. Shri S. K. Ojha, President In-Charge.

                                                                              2. Smt. A. Nanda, Member (W).

Shri S.K. Ojha, President In-Charge :-  The complainant’s case in brief is that, he has purchased one Mobile Handset of Samsung Galaxy Core Model GT-I8262 from the O.P.No. 1 on dt 16.11.2013 by paying Rs. 12,900/- (only) in cash. Just after six days of purchase, the said mobile handset had occurred problems of hanging and not functioning of SIM No. 2 properly, regarding which the complainant informed to the O.P. No. 1 where the O.P. No. 1 advised the complainant  to contact the O.P. No. 2 for repairing. Accordingly the complainant went to O.P. No. 2, where the O.P. NO. 2 suggested the complainant to take the mobile as there is no defect in functioning of SIM No. 1 and assured to replace the Mobile to a new one if further problem comes. Soon after few days the said Mobile occurred problems but the O.P.No.2 did not turn up after several approaches by the complainant. Hence, this case.After being noticed, the O.P. No. 1 appeared through its counsel and filed written version but the O.P. No. 2 and 3 remained absent and stand ex-parte ultimately, even after providing sufficient opportunities to them. The O.P No.1 admitted the fact of purchasing of Mobile from him, but denied all the allegations of the complainant. The O.P. No. 1 submitted that, they are neither authorized dealer of Samsung nor its service provider and referred the complainant to O.P. No. 2 (authorized service centre). The O.P. No. 1 has never provided any short of service for any amount of consideration and prayed for dismissal of the case   

            Heard from the complainant, gone through the case record and documents available. The complainant has purchased one Mobile handset by paying Rs. 12,900/- only against which an estimate / money receipt bearing No. 1817 dt. 16.11.2013 issued in favour of the complainant in which warranty period provided as one year on handset and six month on battery and charger with having endorsement of certain terms and conditions mentioning one of the condition that, “to avail warranty, please take products directly to service centre of manufacturer with copy of our invoice and a note describing the nature of problem”. The O.P. No. 2 ( authorized service franchise of Samsung Mobile ) issued one commitment on case study vide No. 4165058608 of the complainant and mentioned that , “ASC committed to refund handset in further functional complain register by customer as per company policy” with proper seal and signature of the complainant and concerned authorized person. But after being committed in writing, the O.P. No. 2 fails to comply on the same as the said Mobile handset remained occurring problems and brought for repairing to the O.P.No.2 on dtd. 05.03.2014 bearing Work Order serial No. 6548. Thereafter the O.P.No.2 sent a letter to the complainant to get back his Mobile Phone which has been repaired.

            In view of the above facts and circumstances, the O.P.No.2 is found to be deficient in its service by not complying its own written commitment to the complainant. Hence, we are in considered opinion to allow the complaint petition with directions to the O.P No.2 to replace a new defect-free mobile handset of the same brand having same price in exchange of the said defected mobile of the complainant within 15(fifteen) days from the date of receiving of this order alongwith to pay litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only to the complainant, failing which the O.P.No.2 shall be liable for interest @10% per annum on the above mentioned amount till realization.

            Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 25^th day of August’ 2014 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule.              

                                                 I Agree.                        

                  Sd/- A.Nanda, Member (W)          Sd/- S. K. Ojha, President In-Charge.                  

                    Dictated and corrected by me.

      Sd/- S.K.Ojha, President In-Charge.