For Complainant : Sri Sunil Kumar Mohanty, Advocate & associates.
For OP No.1 : Self.
For OP No.2 : None.
For OP No.3 : Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate & associates.
-x-
1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung Z3 mobile handset vide IMEI No.353418/07/238444/6 and 353419/09/234844/4 from OP.1 for Rs.8000/- vide Invoice No.442 dt.06.04.2018 but since the date of purchase the mobile set was having problems in respect of network and hanging problem during the course of use besides poor battery backup. It is submitted that the complainant as per advice of OP.1 (dealer) handed over the defective set for repair to OP No.2 (ASC) on 04.09.2018 but till date the OP.2 has neither rectified the handset nor returned the same to the complainant. The complainant submitted that being an advocate, he is facing difficulties in contacting the clients and vice versa leading to hardship in his professional work. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops either to replace the set with a new one or to refund Rs.8000/-with interest and to pay Rs.30, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.
2. The OP No.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the sale of alleged handset to the complainant. It is contended that the complainant approached the OP.1 alleging defect in the handset and the OP.1 advised him to approach the ASC to rectify defects. Thereafter, the OP has no knowledge as to what happened between the complainant and OP No.2. Thus denying any fault on its part as a dealer, he prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The OP No.2 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in this proceeding in any manner and thus remained exparte. The OP.3 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the handset purchased by the complainant is a well established product in the market over a period of years. Denying the allegation of manufacturing defect in the set, the OP.2 stated that no evidence has been furnished by the complainant to prove the manufacturing defect in the handset. The OP further contended that the complainant is put to strict proof of the fact that the handset has got major problem of manufacturing defect and if a consumer has genuine complaint, the Company has no problem in redressing the same. It is further contended that the OP.2 has repaired the set but the complainant did not turn up to collect his repaired handset from OP No.2. Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.3 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case. We heard from the complainant and the A/R for the OP.3 and perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case, purchase of Samsung Z3 mobile handset vide IMEI No.353418/07/238444/6 and 353419/09/234844/4 from OP.1 for Rs.8000/- vide Invoice No.442 dt.06.04.2018 is an admitted fact as ascertained from the counter of OP.1. The complainant stated that he found certain defects like hang problem, network problem and poor battery back up in the set soon after its purchase for which he approached the authorised service centre of the Company as per advice of OP.1 and the said ASC collected the set from the complainant and issued a job sheet. It is further submitted that the ASC did not repair and return the set in spite of approach.
5. It is seen that the complainant has handed over the set to the ASC as ascertained from the job sheet dt.04.09.2018 available on record. The complainant submitted at the time of hearing that he had approached the ASC to get back his repaired hand set but the set was not repaired and as such he waited for any signal from the ASC. The OP.3 in his counter stated that the handset is already repaired and is with ASC but the complainant never approached the ASC to collect the repaired handset. If this is the fact, then what is the duty of the ASC. It is incumbent on the part of the ASC to either intimate the complainant regarding status of the set over phone available in the job sheet or could have written a letter to the complainant to collect his handset from the ASC. In this case, the ASC (OP.2) remained absent in this proceeding and hence we have no scope to hear anything from the ASC. No such copy of letter or telephonic contact to the complainant is available on record. In the above premises, it can be concluded that the ASC (OP.2) has paid utter callousness towards the grievance of the complainant/consumer.
6. The OP.3 in its counter stated that the complainant has not furnished expert opinion in the form of evidence to prove that the set suffers from manufacturing defect. In this regard we are of the opinion that the ASC of the Company are armed with all technical persons to provide after sale service to the customers on behalf of the Company. The complainant has approached the ASC at Jeypore and the same is lying with the ASC as evident from the record. In absence of ASC in this case, we failed to know the previous and present status of the handset. The complainant has also filed copy of job sheet in this case.
9. In the above facts and circumstances, it can be safely held that the handset of OP.3 has got some major defect within warranty period for which the set could not be handed over to the complainant with repair. As such the present complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.8, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 04.09.2018, the date of handing over of set to ASC. Further the complainant being an advocate by profession must have suffered some mental agony due to defective set sold to him and non repair of the set and for such inaction of the Ops the complainant has come up with this case incurring some expenditure. Thus the complainant is entitled for compensation beside cost of this litigation. Considering the sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice. The award of compensation and cost is to be borne by the OP No.2 as he committed gross deficiency in service and has retained the set of the complainant forcefully with him till date.
10. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable. Accordingly OP No.3 is directed to refund Rs.8, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 04.09.2018 and the OP No.2 is directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. If the OP No.2 fails to pay the awarded sum to the complainant within the stipulated period, the awarded sum shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order.
(to dict.)