Orissa

Rayagada

CC/307/2015

Sri Mithun Mohan Rout - Complainant(s)

Versus

Doordarshan Rayagada - Opp.Party(s)

Self

15 Mar 2016

ORDER

          DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

 

                                                      C.C. Case  No.307 / 2015.

                                                                       

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Smt. Ch.  Nirmala Kumari Raju, LLB,                    Member

            Mithun Mohan Rout, S/o Mr.Majheswar Rout, Qr.No.S.P.T 12/12,J.K.PM     Colony,            At/Po J.K.Pur, Dist. Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ………Complainant

Vrs.

 

1.                  Doordarshan Electronics, Rayagada.

2.                  Samsung Service Centre, Rayagada

3.                  Samsung India   Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

                                                                                                 ……...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.Ps: Sri K.Ch.Mohapatra & Associate Advocate, Rayagada.

 

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one  Samsung mobile   from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.11,600/- on 09.09.2014 vide Retail Tax Invoice No.34934 with one year warranty    but  after  its  purchase set mobile set  was found defective and it could not be used properly for which  the complainant informed to the O.p. No.1 and O.P No.1 advise to approach the service centre  and the complainant went to the service centre for its repair  and delivered  the same  for repair  but  the O.ps failed to remove the above defects   and hence finding no other option  the complainant  approach this forum and prayed to direct the O.ps  to replace the mobile set  or refund the cost of  Rs.11,600/- . and  award compensation for mental agony  and such other relief as the forum deem fit and proper . Hence, this complaint.

                         On being noticed, the O.ps appeared  through their advocate and filed written version inter  alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. It is submitted by the O.Ps that  the case is not maintainable  and liable to be dismissed.  There is no cause of action to file this case against the O.ps  and the cause of action given in the petition is false, imaginary and baseless. The real fact is that the complainant has purchased the mobile set  on 09.09.14 and used the said mobile smoothly  without any objection before any of the Opp.Party. On 07.01.15 the complainant has claimed before the Samsung Customer Service Center, Rayagada – O.P 2 for defect of hang, network issue and call conference problem in the mobile  and approached the O.p No.4 for  defect of low  battery backup, some times touch not working while calling in his mobile phone and approach for service   and the O.p 2 has  repaired the mobile of the complainant by replacing the touch screen with LCD ;of the hand set and  delivered the  mobile  to the complainant   on 13.1.15 in OK condition and the O.p 2 has received Rs.3415.35 towards  the cost of the sphere of touch screen and LCD and  labour charge from the O.p 3   for the said repair. Further on 25.06.2015 the complainant has claimed before the O.P 2 for the defect of problem when receiving calls and during calls and auto function while use in his mobile and approach for service and again the O.p 2 has upgraded the software of the said mobile  and delivered the said repaired mobile to the complainant in OK condition on the same day and the O.p 2 has received Rs.165/-  from the O.p 3 towards his labour charge. After repair the complainant has also used the said mobile smoothly till today without any defect. After this service the complainant was not given any complaint before the O.ps  about the defect  of his mobile and there is no information about the problems of the complainant’s mobile before the Opp.Parties . Only to harass the O.ps the complainant  all of sudden   at the end of his warranty period filed this case before this forum. Hence the complaint filed  is malafide intention to harass the O.ps  and prayed to dismiss the complaint.    

 

                                                                       FINDINGS

                        Heard and perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and we accept the grievance of the complainant. The Complainant  argued that the O.ps have sold a defective  mobile set  to the complainant and claimed that the O.ps caused deficiency in service and deprived of the complainant of enjoyment of the mobile set  since the date of  its purchase  which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

Now we have to see whether there was any negligence of the Ops  in providing  after sale service  to the complainant as alleged ?

 

We perused the documents filed by the complainant.  Since the mobile set found defective after its purchase    and   the complainant  informed the Ops regarding the defect but the  Ops   failed to remove  the defect . At this stage we hold that  if the mobile set  require  servicing since  the date of its purchase, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if the defective mobile set  is sold to the complainant , the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new  one or  remove the defects  and also the   complainant is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss.  In the instant case  as it is appears that the mobile set  which was purchased by the complainant had developed  defects and the O.ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period. It appears that the complainant invested  a substantial amount and purchased the mobile set  with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the article. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of using the mobile set  for such  and the defecates were not removed by the O.ps who  know the defects from time to time from the complainant.

Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet  his mental agony, financial loss. Hence,  it is ordered.

 

                                                ORDER

                        The  opposite parties  are directed to repair  the mobile set   and extend further  warranty   and pay cost of Rs.500/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay  interest  @  12%  p.a. on the above awarded amount till  the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this14^th  day January,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

            Member                                                                                               President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Xerox copy of  Retail Invoice.
2. Xerox copy of acknowledgement of service request.

By the Opp.Party: Nil

 

                                                                                                           President