IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.
CONSUMER CASE NO. : 32/S/2015. DATED : 09.09.2016.
BEFORE PRESIDENT : SRI BISWANATH DE,
President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.
MEMBERS : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &
SRI PABITRA MAZUMDAR.
COMPLAINANT : SRI TRILOK CHAND AGARWAL,
S/O Late Chandu Lal Agarwal,
Resident of Milanpally, Siliguri, Ward No.XXV
of Siliguri Municipal Corporation,
P.O.- Siliguri Bazar, P.S.- Siliguri,
Dist.- Darjeeling.
O.Ps. 1. : GOYEL COMMUNICATION,
Near State Bank of India,
Station Feeder Road, Siliguri – 734 005,
Dist.- Darjeeling.
2. : S. R. Electronics,
Authorised Samsung Service Centre,
Kunja Kuthir, 9, Swamiji Sarani,
Hakimpara, Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling.
3. : SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,
B-1, Sector 81, Phase 2,
Noida – 201301,
Dist.- Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Sri Shantanu De, Advocate.
FOR THE OP No.1 : Sri Arun Mishra, Advocate.
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.
The case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one Samsung Mobile, bearing Model No.GT-I8262, IMEI No.357089059848541 on 01.01.2014 from the OP No.1. Since purchase the mobile encountered serious problem of not Charging. The complainant informed the matter to OP No.1 & OP No.2 but they replied that mobile was OK. But the complainant faced repeatedly new problem and told the OP No.2 for replacing the mobile. But on repeated occasions in spite of giving oral promise, the OP neither remove the problem nor the OP replaced the mobile. After a prolong persuasion, the complainant approached before the Forum with the grievances of defective mobile and prays remedial reliefs.
Contd……..P/2
-:2:-
The OP No.1 and other appeared and filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant. The case of the OP No.1 is that he did not sale defective mobile to the complainant. The complainant did not come to OP No.1 for removing defect. Hence, the OP No.1 prays for dismissal of the complaint case.
To prove the case the complainant filed the following documents :-
1. Original copy of Invoice/Cash Memo of the purchased mobile issued by OP No.1.
2. Original copy of the Warranty Certificate issued by OP No.3 in favour of complainant.
3. Original copy of Customer Service Record Card issued by OP No.2 in favour of the complainant.
4. Original copy of letter dated 14.10.2014 issued by OP No.2.
5. Original copy of the Notice sent by the complainant to the OPs dated 31.12.2014.
6. Original copy of the Postal receipts of the Notice sent to the OPs.
Complainant has filed evidence in-chief.
OP No.1 has filed evidence-in-chief.
Complainant has filed Written Notes on argument.
OP No.1 has filed Written Notes of Argument.
Points for determination
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reason
Both issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.
From the document it appears that customer service record card found and detected the defect and the defect is “calling time auto off”. It also appears from the document at page 7 that ‘battery was changed’ by S R Electronics, Authorised Service Franchise, Samsung India. These two documents show that mobile purchased on 01.01.2014 was obviously defective. Otherwise complainant would not knock the door of OP Nos.1 & 2 again and again with complaint and those complaints have obtained by Customer Service Record Card at page 5. To contradict this report of Customer Service Record Card,
Contd……..P/3
-:3:-
OP No.1 & 2 did not adduce any counter document. Accordingly, there is no hesitation to make conclusion that OP No.1 sold defective mobile to the complainant. As such the case succeeds.
Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get proper relief as per law.
The complainant is entitled to get price of the mobile set or the said set.
Purchase amount is 13,250/-. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.13,250/- or replace the said set.
The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.10,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment.
The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards punitive damages.
The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case No.32/S/2015 is allowed on contest against the OP No.1 and allowed exparte against the OP Nos.2 & 3 with cost.
The complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.13,250/- or replace the said set from the OPs.
The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.10,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment from the OPs.
The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards punitive damages from the OPs.
The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost from the OPs.
The OPs, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to pay Rs.13,250/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant or replace the said set within 45 days of this order.
The OPs, who are jointly and severally liable, are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for mental pain, agony and harassment, within 45 days of this order.
The OPs, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for punitive damages within 45 days of this order.
Contd……..P/4
-:4:-
The OPs, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards litigation cost within 45 days of this order.
Failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded sum of Rs.28,250/- from the date of this till realization.
In case of default, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law.
Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.
