Tripura

West Tripura

CC/8/2015

Sri Santanu Chakraborty. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

29 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 08 of 2015

Sri Santanu Chakraborty,
Sekerkote, Amtali, 
District- West Tripura.         ............Complainant.

         ______VERSUS______

1. Managing Director,
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Tower- C, 
Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, 
Sector- 43, Gurgaon- 122002,
Hariyana.

2. Samsung Service Centre (S.B. Electronics),
Near Madan Mohan Temple,
91, H.G. B. Road, Melarmath,
Agartala- 799001.         .........Opposite parties.
    

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant         : Complainant in person.
                  
                           
For the Opposite parties    : None appeared.
                               

        

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : - 29.05.15

 

J U D G M E N T     

        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sri Santanu Chakraborty of Sekerkote, Amtali, West Tripura against the O.Ps, namely the Managing Director, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and another over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps.
    
2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy Mobile of Model No- S4 Mini GSM from M/S Maa Electronics on 30.08.14 for Rs.20,000/-. After few months of purchase the mobile set started giving troubles. Its battery backup went very low and if used to be very hot while charging. Accordingly, on 14.01.15 he placed the mobile set with the Samsung service centre, Agartala (O.P. No. 2) to rectify  the defect. After due checking the technician of the service centre advised him to replace the motherboard of the mobile set for which a sum of Rs.7,100/- was demanded being the  price of the equipment. Since the mobile set was within the period of warranty, he did not agree to their proposal. He demanded replacement of the mobile set by a new one or return of its  price but the O.Ps did not respond favourably. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.Ps constitutes negligence and deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
    
3.        Upon admission of the complaint, notice to O.P. No.1 was sent by speed post on 02.02.15 but he did not appear. Though the notice to O.P. No.2 was tendered, he refused to receive the same. Hence, the case has been proceeded exparte against both the O.Ps.

4.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:
    Exhibit 1- Money receipt dated 30.08.14,
    Exhibit 2- Warranty card,
    Exhibit 3- Acknowledgment of service request.

    FINDINGS:

5.        The points that would arise for consideration in this case are;
        (I) Whether the mobile set purchased by the complainant suffered from mechanical defect;
        (II) Whether the O.P. No.2 declined to repair the mobile set free of cost during the period of warranty;
        (III) Whether the O.Ps are guilty of negligence and deficiency in service.

6.        We have already heard argument advanced by the complainant in person.    Also perused the pleading, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant meticulously.
        
7.        There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy mobile of Model No- S4 Mini GSM from the authorized dealer of the O.P. No.1, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. on 30.08.14. It has come out from the pleading as well as evidence of the complainant that during the period of warranty the mobile set so purchased started giving troubles. So, he placed the mobile set with the authorized service centre of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (O.P. No.2)  to rectify the defect. But the O.P. No.2 demanded  a sum of Rs. 7,100/- being the price of the equipment that would be required for rectification of the mobile set. From the documents on record it is seen that the mobile set was purchased on 30.08.14 and it was placed with the service centre (O.P. No.2) on 14.01.15 to cure the defect as pointed out by the complainant. There is no doubt about that the mobile set was placed with the service centre of O.P. No.2 within the period of warranty. In this situation, the O.P. No.2 can not demand any money towards replacement of any defective part of the mobile set. The evidence of the complainant has remained unrebutted and unshaken. The O.P. side did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal. Until contrary is proved, we will have to rely upon the evidence adduced by the complainant. In our opinion, since the mobile set started giving troubles within the period of warranty, the O.Ps are duty bound to rectify the defect of the mobile set suitably free of cost. If the O.Ps failed to do this, certainly it amounted to deficiency in service. It is needless to say that failure to repair the mobile set within the period of warranty constitutes negligence and deficiency in service, for which the complainant is liable to be compensated by the O.Ps jointly and severally.

8.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed exparte. The O.Ps No.1 and 2 are directed to repair the mobile set in question, if necessary, by replacing any of its defective spare part that may be required at their own costs jointly and severally. If they fail to repair the set suitably, it has to be replaced by a new one. The O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand) to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment with Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) as cost of litigation within one month from the date of judgment, failing which the amount payable will carry interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of presentation of the complaint before this Forum on 19.01.15 till the payment is made.    

9.                  A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.