DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KALAHANDI AT BHAWANIPATNA.
C.C. Case No.48/ 2018.
PRESENT
Sri Aswini Kumar Sahoo, M.A, LL.B ,OSPS(I) Sr. Retd. President.
Smt.Bhawani Pattnaik, M.A,LL.B,PGDCLP, Member
Asutosh Pradhan, aged 41 years, S/o Dasha Pradhan, R/o Purunapada, Po/Ps : Bhawanipatna, Dist. Kalahandi, Odisha. ……Complainant
Vrs.
- Managing Director, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 6th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
- The Branch Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.1-7,Ground Floor, Odisha Business Centre, Unit 12, Rasulgarh Square, Bhubaneswar-751010.
- The Proprietor, Mahavir Enterprises, Near Satyam Cinema Hall, At/Po/Ps Bhawanipatna, Dist. Kalahandi.
-
Counsel for the parties:
For the complainant: Sri Sudhir Kumar Panda , Advocate, Bhawanipatna.
For the O.Ps: Sri S.K.Mishra & Associates Advocate, Nabarangpur.
JUDGMENT
The facts of the complaint in brief is that, the complainant has purchased one Samsung Washing Machine from O.P. No.3 with a consideration of Rs.22,200/- vide Invoice No.12478 dt.31.08.2016. After few days of its use the complainant noticed some technical defects in the washing machine and brought it to the knowledge of local technicians of the OP ;company who attended to repair the defects and found the defects but failed to remove the defects. The complainant lodged complaint on various dates before the local servicing centre of the Opp.Party No.1 but could not rectify the defects. Finding no other option the complainant filed this complaint and prayed to direct the OP to replace the defective washing machine or refund Rs.22,200/- and direct the Op to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. Hence, this complaint.
On being noticed, the Opposite Party No.1 appeared through their advocate and filed written version denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. The OP No.2 & 3 neither appeared nor filed written version as such they were set exparte.
It is submitted by the Op NO.1 that the complainant purchased one Samsung Washing Machine on 31.08.2016 for Rs.22,200/- from the Opp.Party No.3 and the said washing machine was installed by the Company in the premises of the complainant. The Opposite Party is a customer friendly company and if the customer has genuine complaint, the company has no problem in redressing the same. It is alleged by the complainant that the washing machine has manufacturing defects to which the Opp.Party denied and submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the washing machine. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought in the complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
F I N D I N G
After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the complainant requested the technician and Opposite Parties for repair of his Washing Machine but the OP failed to rectify the defects. The complainant stated that after its purchase the technician of the Opposite Party installed the washing machine in his premises but after few days of its use he noticed some defects in it and accordingly informed to the local technician of the company but the technician failed to rectify the defects .In spite of repeated requests also the Opp.Party did not listen to the complainant and the OPs failed to rectify the defects to restore its normal functioning for which the complainant suffered mental agony and finding no other option the complainant approached the forum for his grievance. It is the bounden duty of the OPs to rectify the defects which arose within the warranty period and the alleged washing machine could not function or replace it if the defect is not reparable.
The complainant purchased the washing machine for his day to day use but as the machine did not function properly and gave troubles after its purchase, the complainant’s wish of comfortable use of the machine is defeated as the OPs failed to rectify the defects completely which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OP 1 manufacturer of the washing machine is liable to replace the washing machine. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainant approached the OPs within the warranty period and the OPs failed to rectify the defects, as such he approached the forum. The Ops completely failed to rectify the defects . Hence we are of the opinion that a new washing machine of the same model with fresh warranty be replaced to the complainant without charging any extra amount. In the result, this complaint is allowed in part with the following directions
ORDER
The Opposite Parties are directed to replace the washing machine with a new one of the same model with fresh warranty to the complainant without charging any extra amount and pay litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order or in alternative pay back the cost of the washing machine.
Pronounced in open forum today on this 15th day February,2019 under the seal and signature of this forum.
Member President
Documents relied upon:
By the complainant:
- Copy of Retail Invoice dt.31.08.2016
By the Opp.Party:
- Copy of Customer Service Record
President
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA
C.C. Case No.53/ 2015.
P R E S E N T .
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B, President.
Smt. Ch. NirmalaKumariRaju, LLB, Member
Manjit Kumar panda,S/o Sasibhusan Panda, Resident of R.K.Nagar, Rayagada. ………Complainant
Vrs.
- Kapilas Cyber Solution, Beside Hotel Kapilas, Main Road, Rayagada, Pin 765001.
- Manager, Sales &Marketing ,Samsung India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
- Manager, Sales &Marketing ,Samsung India Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar.
……...Opp.Parties
Counsel for the parties:
For the complainant: In Person
For the O.Ps: Exparte
JUDGMENT
The facts of the complaint in brief is that, the complainant has purchased one Samsung Galaxy Grand 2 from O.p. No.1 with a consideration of Rs.20,000/- on 5.06.2014 vide money receipt No.5865 with one year warranty but after its purchase set mobile set was found defective such as battery automatic discharge, hanging and so many defects and it could not be used properly for which the complainant informed to the O.p. No.1 and delivered the same for repair but the O.ps failed to remove the above defects and hence finding no other option the complainant approach this forum and prayed to direct the O.ps to replace the mobile set or refund the cost of Rs.20,000/- .and award compensation for mental agony and such other relief as the forum deem fit and proper . Hence, this complaint.
On being noticed, the O.ps appeared through their advocate and filed written version inter alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. It is submitted by the O.Ps that the case is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. There is no cause of action to file this case against the O.ps and the cause of action given in the petition is false, imaginary and baseless. The real fact is that the complainant has purchased the mobile set for Rs.20,000/- and on 25.10.14 the Service centre Rayagada received the said mobile from the complainant for removal of defect and the service centre upgraded the soft ware and delivered the said set to the complainant on the same date in OK condition with warranty and after this service the complainant was not given any complaint before the O.ps for the Samsung Customer Service centre, Rayagada about the defect of his mobile and there is no information about the problems of the complainant’s mobile before the Opp.Parties . Only to harass the O.ps the complainant all of sudden at the end of his warranty period filed this case before this forum. Hence the complaint filed is malafide intention to harass the O.ps and prayed to dismiss the complaint .
FINDINGS
Heard and perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and we accept the grievance of the complainant. The Complainant argued that the O.ps have sold a defective mobile set to the complainant and claimed that the O.ps caused deficiency in service and deprived of the complainant of enjoyment of the mobile set since the date of its purchase which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
Now we have to see whether there was any negligence of the Ops in providing after sale service to the complainant as alleged ?
We perused the documents filed by the complainant. Since the mobile set found defective after its purchase and the complainant informed the Ops regarding the defect but the Ops failed to remove the defect . At this stage we hold that if the mobile set require servicing since the date of its purchase, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if the defective mobile set is sold to the complainant , the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new one or remove the defects and also the complainant is entitled and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss. In the instant case as it is appears that the mobile set which was purchased by the complainant had developed defects and the O.ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period. It appears that the complainant invested a substantial amount and purchased the mobile set with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the article. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of using the mobile set for such and the defecates were not removed by the O.ps who know the defects from time to time from the complainant.
Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet his mental agony, financial loss. Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
The opposite parties are directed to repair the mobile set and extend the warranty for another six months and pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- for mental agony undergone by the complainant and cost of Rs.500/- . Further, we direct the Ops to pay the aforesaid award amount within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the above awarded amount till the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed.
Pronouncedin open forum today on this 5th day November,2015 under the seal and signature of this forum.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties free of charge.
Member President
Documents relied upon:
By the complainant:
- Xerox copy of SalesInvoice.
- Xerox copy of acknowledgement of service request.
By the Opp.Party: Nil
President
