OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.102/14
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Sri U.N.Deka - Member
Wahidur Rahman -Complainant
Son of Abdul Jalil,
Village Achalpara
P.O.Bhitarduwar,P.S.Chhaygaon,
District-Kamrup® Assam.
-vs-
1) Gaurav Electronics -Opp.parties
15Dewan Market, S.S.Road
Lakhtokia,Ghty-1
Districit Kamrup(M),Assam
2) Bir Electronics Pvt.Ltd.
Bora Service Petrol Pump Building
Ground Floor, G.S.Road
Ghty-7, Kamrup(Metro),Assam.
3) Samsung Mobiles
Samsung Regional Office,K.F.C.Building,
Ulubari,Lachitnagar,Ghty-7,
Represented by its Manager
Appearance-
Learned advocate Mr.B.K.Das for the complainant
Date of argument- 10.2.2016
Date of judgment- 26.2.2016
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1) The complaint filed by Md.Wahidur Rahman is admitted on 10.11.14 and notices served upon the opp.parties namely Gaurav Electronics, Bir Electronics Pvt.Ltd., Samsung Mobiles, and they had filed written statement, but on 12.11.15 opp.party side was found absent without step, and accordingly we passed order directing that the case against the opp.parties will proceed on exparte. Thereafter, on 7.1.16, the complainant side filed the affidavit and on 10.2.16 filed the written argument (exparte argument).
2) The complainant case in brief is that he had purchased one Samsung Mobile Model No.9355 on 1.10.14 for a consideration of Rs.7,850/- from Opp.Party No.1, but on the very next day of purchase it was found defective and he immediately took the hand-set to Opp.Party No.1 and requested him to replace the same, but the latter refused to replace it and suggested him to approach Opp.Party No.2; and he then went to the office of Opp.Party No.2 who check the hand-set and gave him an assessment memo of the repairing charge amounting to Rs.11,138/- which is higher than the actual price of the mobile hand-set. The Opp.Party No.2 stated to him that the handset is a dead set. Opp.Party had not replaced the said defective hand-set with a new one in spitie of his request. For non-functioning of the hand-set he has suffered a lot and also suffered financial loss; and so he prays for directing the opp.parties to pay him Rs.25,000/- as compensation.
3) We have perused the affidavit (evidence) and found that the complainant had purchased a Samsung Mobile Model No.9355 from Opp.Party No.1 (Gaurav Electronics) at a consideration of Rs.7,850/- . From other documents, it is seen that Opp.Party No.2, Bir Electronics Pvt.Ltd. examined the mobile hand-set of the complainant and found that it is dead set and accordingly they gave an estimate about Rs.11,138’12 as cost of repairing. Thus, it is proved that the mobile hand-set purchased by the complainant from Opp.Party No.1 on 7.10.14 was found defective after.
It is found that Opp.Party No.3 Samsung mobile is the manufacturer of the said Mobile . It is also found that the complainant purchased the said mobile from Opp.Party No,.1 namely Gaurav Electronics , Lakhtakia, .
4)The complainant states in evidence that on the very next day purchasing of the said mobile it was found that the mobile was defective and he immediately approached Opp.Party No.2 for repairing of said mobile, but Opp.Party No.2 reported him that the said mobile is dead set and advised him to buy another hand-set in a compensating rate of Rs.7,000/- and refused to repair the said mobile. From Ex.2 it is seen that the said mobile was produced to Opp.Party No.2 for repairing on 14.10.14 i.e. after 13 days of purchase and Opp.Party No.2 gave an estimate of repairing which is Rs.11,138.12paisa. Thus, it is proved that the mobile hand-set which the complainant had purchased from Opp.Party No.1 stopped functioning on the very next day of purchase. This fact proves that the mobile was defective. Therefore, for selling the defective mobile, the seller namely Gaurav Electronics (Opp.Party No.1) and its manufacturing Samsung Mobile (Opp.Party No.3) are responsible, but Opp.Party No.2 who is the authorized service centre of Opp.Party No.3 is not responsible for that. Therefore, we hold that Opp.Party No.1 & 3 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for selling a defective mobile to him. The mobile was purchased at a price of Rs.7,850/-. Therefore, Opp.Party No.1 &3 are liable to pay that amount to the complainant and they are also liable to pay another amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for harassing him and putting him in mental agony and also another amount of Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceeding.
5) In view of above discussion the complaint is allowed on exparte and the Opp.Party No.1 & 3 are directed to pay Rs.7,850/- to the complainant as the value of the said defective mobile (hand-set) sold to him by Opp.Party No.1, M/S Gaurav Electronics, and Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceeding, to which they are jointly and severally liable. They are directed to pay the amounts within two months, and in default it shall carry interest @ 12 % per annum.
Given under our hands and seal of this forum on this day 26st Feb,2016.
Free copies of judgment be delivered to the parties.
(Md.S.Hussain)
President
(Mr.U.N.Deka)
Member
