O R D E R
Sri. George Baby (President):
The complainant has filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting a relief from the opposite parties.
2. The complainant’scase is as follows: That the complainant is working as an Assistant Executive Engineer Ground Water Department Kottayam. That the complainant is owned a Samsung J7 Prime mobile phone and its display became defective and hence he had entrusted the same to opposite party who is the authorised service agent of Samsung company for repairing. After the inspection of complainants above mentioned phone, the opposite party stated that the display of the mobile phone has broken and there was a bend on the rare case. The opposite party demanded Rs. 5,500/- for repairing and the complainant has been agreed. After the repair the complainant demanded the job card and old parts which were alleged to be replace from this mobile phone. The opposite party was reluctant to handover the old parts of the phone but ultimately issued the bill for Rs. 4019 to the complainant after heated conversation between them. The complainant had paid the amount of Rs. 4019. But immediately the complainant had realized that the opposite party had not properly cure the defects of the mobile phone and the phone became switched off. The complainant intimated the said matter to the opposite party and once again entrusted the phone for find out the defects. This time the opposite party’s service engineer opined that the phone has no defects. Because of that the complainant has forced to register the complaint before the customer care center of theSamsung company and as per their advice his particular mobile phone was taken to service center located at Kottayam and after the inspection they stated that defects of the mobile phone was occurred only due to the service done by the opposite party. The phone is not in good condition and the same is not worthy for use. The opposite party has adopted unfair trade practice and committed deficiency in service.
3. The Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for their appearance. But the opposite party had not come forwarded to contest the case and hence the opposite party became ex-parte.
4. In the light of the complaint and available records, we framed following issues for trail.
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation and cost?
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant the complainant filed proof affidavit and examinedas PW1 and marked Exhibit A1, A2, A2(a), A2(b). The complainant has produced the defective mobile handset and marked the same as MO1. Exhibit A1 is the tax invoice. Exhibits A2 is the office copy of Advocate notice. Exhibit A2(a) is the postal receipt. Exhibit A2(b) is the signed acknowledgment card. After the closure evidence we heard the complainant.
4. Point No. 1&2:- For the sake of convenience we are considering the issues together. It is the specific case of the complainant that his Samsung J7 Prime mobile handset became defective and entrusted to the opposite party for repairing. After that the opposite party has returned the mobile phone to the complainant under the pretext that mobile phone was properly repaired and received and amount of Rs. 4019 as per Exhibit A1. But after a short while the complainant has realized that the opposite party has not properly rectified the defects of the mobile and hence he entrusted the same to the authorized service center at Kottayam. The Service Engineer at Kottayam opined that the present defects of the mobile set has occurred due to the mishandling of the opposite party and cannot rectify the defects of the mobile phone. The opposite party has adopted unfair trade practice and committed deficiency in service. The complainant had suffered mental pain in this matter. Absolutely there is no contra evidence to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The opposite party is duty bound to repair the complainant mobile handset in working condition especially the complainant had availed the service of opposite party on payment of Rs. 4019/-. The opposite party has failed to discharge his duty and the complainant is entitled to the relief and hence we found both issues in favour of the complainant.
9. In the result for the ends of Justice we pass the following order.
1. The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4019/-
(Rupees Four Thousand and nineteen only) with 10% interest
from the date of order onwards to the complainant.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and cost of Rs. 5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29thday of November, 2019.
(Sd/-)
George Baby,
(President)
Smt. N. ShajithaBeevi (Member-I) : (Sd/-)
Sri.NishadThankappan (Member-II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1:Reji.C
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1: Tax invoice
A2: Office copy of Advocate notice.
A2(a) : Postal receipt
A2(b) : Acknowledgment card
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Court Exhibit :
MO1: Mobile handset
Court Witness: Nil
Copy to:- (1) Reji.C,
Omannil House, Malayallapuzha,
Pathanamthitta.
(2)The Proprietor,
Jumbo Electronics,
Samsung Authorized Service Centre,
SCS Junction, 7/475, Marthoma Building,Thiruvalla
(3) The Stock File.
