CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2015

PRESENT  : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT                   Date of filing: 31/01/2015

                  : SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER

CC/17/2015                

           Hareesh,

           S/o.Hareendranathan,

          “Anugraham”, Meleppuram,                                               :  Complainant

          Olavakkode (PO), Palakkad-678002.

          (By Adv.T.R.Anil Venugopal)

Vs                                                                     

     1. Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd,

 2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th Floor,  Tower C, Vipul Tech Square,

 Old Golf Road, Gurgoan Sector-43,

Gurgoan, Haryana-122002.(Rep.by Divisional Manager)

  2. Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd,

Regional Office, 2 R Tech park, Nirlon complex,

Near to Hub Mall, Off Western Express Highway,

Gorgaon East, Mumbai-400063.

(Rep. by Regional Manager.)                                                 : Opposite Parties

   3. Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd, 

No.24, Near Van Huesen Show Room & Opp-Kalyani Hospital,

Rajasekharan Street, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,

Mylapore, Chennai-600004.(Rep.by Regional Manager)

  4.  Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd,

Authorised Service Centre, Blue Point, 12/657-6, Ist Floor,

M 5 Business Centre,

H.P.O.Road, Palakkad-678001.(Rep.by Manager)

       (By Adv.P.Fazil, Jayasree Manoj & Jithin Paul Vargheese)                           

O R D E R

      By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member

The complainant owns a Samsung Galaxy S3 mobile phone worth Rs.18,000/- and had entrusted the said mobile phone to Opposite party No.4 on 02/12/2014 for the complaint that the phone restarts after some intervals and the phone hangs for certain time. While entrusting the phone, Opposite party No.4 have verified the phone and had accept the work order after noting the defect and the then condition of the phone. At that time Opposite party No.4 had stated that the problem was with the software and promised to update the software and then the phone will be ready to use. The Opposite party No.4 had acknowledged the service request and had accept the phone on 02/12/2014. After two days, complainant had received a telephone call from Opposite party No.4 stating that the phone has fallen in water and the mother board has been damaged the same has to be changed. Immediately complainant approached Opposite party No.4 directly and he was told that the mother board has to be changed and he will have to pay Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) in addition for the same. When the complainant checked the phone from the office of Opposite party No.4 complainant could see that the power switch was seen damaged which was not there at the time of entrustment. The complainant suspects that the said damage was caused due to the carelessness of employees of Opposite party No.4. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties are bound to make good the defect happened from their side. Later the complainant constrains to buy a new mobile phone for Rs.7,000/-(Rupees Seven Thousand Only) for the immediate use. The damaged to the power switch and the mother board if any is caused only due to negligence and improper handling on the part of opposite party which is an illegal trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of a service provider against the customer. Hence the opposite parties who are the manufacture and authorized service agent are all jointly and severally have to make good the loss sustained to the complainant. The above phone is still in the custody of Opposite party No.4. The grievances of the complainant were not redressed by the opposite party even after repeated demands. Thus the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice on 09/12/2014 to the opposite parties and the same was received by all the opposite parties. But they fail to settle the dispute or not bothered to send any reply till date.

Hence the complainant had approached before the forum seeking an order directing the opposite parties to return the mobile phone (Samsung Galaxy S3) in good condition or to pay its market value of Rs.18,000/-(Rupees Eighteen Thousand Only) and to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) for the damages caused to the phone along with Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation for mental agony, pain & suffering and also Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service along with the cost of the complaint. Notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance. Excepting OP1 rest of the opposite parties remained absent inspite of accepting the notice . Hence they were called and set exparte. No version was filed from the part of OP1. The complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents Ext.A1 & A2 series was marked. Matter was heard.

The  issues that arises for consideration is :

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and illegal trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation?

The evidence in this case consist of chief affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1& A2. It is revealed from Ext.A1 that Opposite party No.4 had acknowledged the service request and had accepted the phone on 02/12/2014. From Ext.A2 series it is obvious that the complainant had demanded that all the opposite parties either to settle the dispute and to pay Rs.30,000/-( Rupees Thirty Thousand Only)to the complainant as damages. No reply was seen produced from the part of the opposite parties. Since the  opposite parties  remained  exparte,  and there is no other contradictory evidence to disprove the case of the complainant, we are inclined to allow the complaint. In the above circumstances, we  direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay:-

1. An amount of Rs.18,000/-( Rupees Eighteen Thousand Only) as the market value of the mobile phone Samsung Galaxy S3 with model name GT19300MBDINU and
2. Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation for mental agony pain and sufferings.
3. Along with Rs.2000/- as cost of this proceedings.

 The aforesaid amount shall be paid  within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 10^th day of August 2015.                                                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                             ­Smt. Shiny.P.R.

     President  

        Sd/-

Smt. Suma. K.P             

     Member

                                                Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Photocopy of Acknowledgement of Service Request dated 29/09/2014.

Ext.A2  –Lawyer notice dated 09/12/2014 issued on behalf of the complainant by Adv. T.R.Anil Venugopal to opposite party 1 to 4. With 4 Postal Receipt and 3 Postal Acknowledgement card (8 in Nos).

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost allowed

Rs.2000/- as cost