West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/137/2017

Sk. Samser Ahamed - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mobile Plaza - Opp.Party(s)

Somasish Panda

26 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

 Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

and

                                     Sagarika Sarkar, Member.                               

Complaint Case No.137/2017

                                           Sk. Samser Ahamed, S/o-Sk. Ansar Ahamed, Vill-Barua,                  

                                                         Keranichati, P.O.-Bhadutala  & P.S.-Kotwali,

                                                                                     District- Paschim Medinipur

                                                                                      ..…….……Complainant.

Vs.

                                                                    1) Mobile Plaza, represented by its proprietor,

                                                                          Keranitola, P.O.-Midnapore & P.S.-Kotwali,

                                                                           District- Paschim Medinipur;

                     

                                                                 2) Samsung Service Center, represented by it office-in-charge, Midnapore office, Keranitola,                                                                           Dolphine Lodge, P.O.-Midnapore & P.S.-Kotwali,

                                                                     District- Paschim Medinipur;

                                                                3)  Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. , represented by it Manager,                                              

                                                                     Registered Office at A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower,                                                    

                                                                       Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.

                                         ………….….Opps. Party/Parties.

            

               For the Complainant: Mr. Somasish Panda, Advocate.

               For the O.P.               : Mr. Arindam Nanda, Mr. Susanta Kumar Jana

                                                      and Mr. Subal Chakraborty, Advocate.

                                                          

                                                                                         Date of filling:-  25/08/2017

  Decided on : -    26/04/2018

 

                           

Sagarika Sarkar, Member – This instant case is filed u/s-12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by the complainant Sk. Samser Ahamed, S/o-Sk. Ansar Ahamed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the above mentioned O.P.

                                                                                                                                          Contd…………………….P/2

                                                             

                                                                 

                                                                                                                     ( 2 )

                     The complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy J24G mobile hand set vide IMA No.354470087023666 at an amount of Rs.7,850/- along with V.A.T. @14.5%  i.e. Rs.994.11/- on 22.3.2017 from the O.P.No.1 the retailer of the mobile phones.   After some days the said mobile hand set started mal-functioning and the complainant informed the said problem to the O.P.No.1 who advised the complainant to inform the said  problem of his mobile set to the manufacturer of the said mobile set. It is stated in the petition of complaint that due to his father’s                                                                                      

illness he was not able to inform the manufacturer  i.e. O.P.No.3 about the problem of his mobile set  and on 28.6.2017 he went to the office of Authorised  Service Centre of Samsung  India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. i.e.O.P.No.2 and informed them about the said problem and deposited the mobile set  to the O.P.No.2. After some days the complainant  went to office of the O.P.No.2 who informed him that his mobile set faced such problem due to damage of liquid and they also informed that there was no warranty against the liquid damage of the phone for which he had to pay Rs.5,930/- towards repairing cost. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that the O.P.No.2 refused to provide any service within warranty period and such acts of the O.P. amounts to deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice on their part.  Accordingly the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.Ps. to return the value of the mobile set or to replace it by a new one and to pay Rs.50,000/-towards compensation & Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.

                  O.Ps. have contented this case by filing separate W/V. Denying and disputing the allegation made against them, it is the case of the O.Ps. that the mobile hand set was deposited with the problems of becoming hang on logo due to leakage of liquid seepage affected printed circuit board and the O.P.No.2 opened a job sheet in respect of the service of mobile in question vide Job Number 4239616819 dated-28.6.2017. It is also stated by the O.P. no.2  that as such type of defects caused by misuse of the mobile set and that as such defect does not  cover warranty as per guideline of the Company so they gave the complainant an estimated cost of Rs.5,930/-for repairing charges. But the complainant refused to avail such service by paying the estimated cost. Accordingly O.Ps. have prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.

                      In support of his case, complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 and during his examination some documents were marked as Exhibit 1 to 5 respectively.  On the other hand, O.Ps did not adduce any evidence.

                                                                                                                                                              Contd…………………….P/3

 

                                                          

                                                                                                                       ( 3 )

 

                                                 Points for decision

 

1. Whether there is defects in the mobile handset ?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for ?

Decision with reasons

 

Point No.1:-

            Admittedly the complainant purchased a mobile hand set from the O.P.No.1 and deposited the same, for the problem of hanged up and automatically switched of to the O.P.No.2, the authorized service centre within the warranty period on 28.6.2017. After examining the mobile in question the O.P.No.2 opened a job sheet (exhibit-2) from where it appears that the mobile set in question had the defect of      “hang on log” which indicates that the mobile set had some in-built problems and for that reason it could not work properly. Since the O.P.No.2 & 3 have alleged that the mobile in question had the problem of hang on log due to leakage of liquid seepage affected printed circuit board but they failed to prove that allegation by adducing expert opinion or cogent evidence. It is, however, observed that in the job sheet (exhibit-2) the service engineer appointed by the O.P.No.2 has opined on the defect description as HANG ON LOG but did not mention as leakage of liquid seepage affected printed circuit board as alleged by the O.P.No.2 & 3 and, therefore, in this respect we hold that the expert opinion is not indispensable to this case since the said service engineer is supposed to have adequate knowledge regarding the goods in question. Therefore it has been substantiated that there is defect in the mobile set.

                    Point No.1 is decided accordingly in favour of the complainant.

 

Point No,2 :-  

                    The complainant has alleged that after examining his mobile hand set O.P.No.2 estimated Rs.5,930/- for repairing cost though his mobile set was covered under warranty and as per warranty O.P. should provide free service to him. On the other hand O.P.No.2 & 3 have alleged that the mobile in question had the problem of hang on log due to leakage of seepage affected printed circuit board, caused by misuse and that type of defect does not cover warranty but no cogent evidence at all has been adduced by the O.Ps.to substantiate the alleged misuse of the mobile set in

                                                                                                                                                              Contd…………………….P/4

 

                                                       

 

                                                                                                             ( 4 )

question. As the mobile set was within the warranty period the O.Ps. were supposed to provide free service as per warranty. Refusal to provide such service amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.          

            Point No.2 is decided accordingly.

 

Point No.3 :-

            In the light of foregoing discussion it is held that the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for.

            Since the O.Ps .refused to provide free service to the complainant and compelled to file this instant case and thus caused mental agony of the complainant, so they are liable to bear compensation & litigation cost.

            All points are accordingly disposed of.                                                                                   

             In the result the complaint case succeeds.

                           

                               Hence, it is,

 

                                                ORDERED

       

                                                  that the Complaint Case No.137/17 is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. no. 1 & 3 with cost and dismissed on contest against O.P. no.2 without cost.

                 O.P. nos.1 & 3 are jointly and severally directed to refund the amount of the mobile set to the complainant or to replace it by new one within one month from this date of order. O.P. nos.1 & 3 are further directed to pay Rs.1,000/-towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from this date of order. 

                 Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.                                                                                                                                                                                       

Dictated and corrected by me

         Sd/- S. Sarkar                             Sd/-P.K. Singha                 Sd/-B. Pramanik.                                    

               Member                                      Member                              President 

                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                     Paschim Medinipur