Orissa

Rayagada

CC/252/2016

Sirla Hemalatha - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Kapilas Cyber Solutions - Opp.Party(s)

Self

07 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 252 / 2016.                                              Date.        7.       11  . 2017

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar  Mohapatra,                         President.

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,                                                                      Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                                              Member

 

Sri   Sirla  Hemalata, D/O: S.Nallayya, At: Indira   Nagar,  4^th. Lane, Po/Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                                     …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Manager, Kapilas Cyber solutions, Po/ Dist: Rayagada  (Odisha).

2. The Manager, Samsung Service centre,  Near Andhra Bank, Po/ Dist: Rayagada .

3. The Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., B-1, Sector-8 phase-2, Noida Dist.  Goutabudha Nagar, U.P. 

4.The Manager,  M/S. Samsung  India  Electronics Pvt. Ltd., having its Regd. Office at A-25, Ground floor, front tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial  Estate, New Delhi- 110044.

)                                                                                   … Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:-Self..

For the O.P 1 & 2:- Set exparte.

For the O.P. No.3 & 4:-Sri K.Ch.Mohapatra,Advocate, Bhubaneswar.

JUDGMENT

                The  present dispute arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of mobile price.   The brief facts of the case  has summarised here under.

 

            The complainant had purchased Samsung Galaxy J2 4 G having the IMEI Nos. 353508/07/049674/8 and  No. 353309/07/049074/6 on Dt. 27.10.2015  for total price Rs.8,400/- with one year warranty. The above set was found  defective  within   short period. But the O.P. No.2 has   not rectified the  defects  of the above set.  Hence this case. The complainant  prays the forum direct the O.Ps to refund  the price of the above  set with  compensation and such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

 

            On being noticed the O.P. No.1 & 2 neither appeared nor filed written version. Hence the O.P. No.1 & 2  was set exparte to close the case in time bound.

 

            The O.P. No.3 & 4  appeared  through  their learned counsel and filed  written version. The O.P.No. 3  & 4 submitted that  the case is not maintainable both in eye of law as well as record and the same is liable to be dismissed. The facts stated in the complaint  are false, misconceived, baseless, unfounded, frivolous and concocted and liable to be dismissed.  All the allegations of the  complainant are lie. The complainant be put to strict proof of the same.  The averment of the complaint petition are wrong and hereby denied. The complainant  has neither proved and nor provided any document regarding the defect of his aforesaid  mobile. The O.P. No. 3 & 4  prays the forum the complainant is not entitled for any relief as   prayed in the  complaint petition and thus the complaint of the complainant may be  dismissed  for the best interest of justice.

 

The O.P  No.  3 & 4   appeared and filed their written version.  Arguments from the  learned counsels for  the O.Ps   and from the complainant  heard.   Perused the record, documents, filed by both  the parties. 

            The  learned counsel  for the O.Ps. vehemently advanced arguments touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

          FINDINGS.

                Regarding the contentions of the O.P. No.  & 4 that the complaint petition  is not maintainable  in  this forum.  We are of the opinion that the case  is relating to defective goods  which is covered under section 2(i)(f) of the C.P. Act. The C.P. Act provides that  “Defective means any fault, in imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity are standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force”.                                                                        

After amendment made by  the C.P. Act   of 2002 wherein it  is made clear that the Users and includes the provisions of which means that when a person is using the product of the O.P.No. 3 & 4   purchased from the  O.P.No.1 he is also coming within the definition of consumer and the service provided  or attached to the said  goods in the shape of warranty or guarantee is also available to the users.

Admittedly the O.P. No. 1  selling the product manufactured by the O.P. No. 3 & 4  and they also  issuing  warranty card against  the said product to the consumers which was attached to the said product.  The O.P. No.1  is  marketing the products. When the consumer is purchasing the consumer goods he is under the  bonafide believes that the said goods is having the warranty or guarantee  attached to it.

Coming to the merits of the case the complainant was purchased the Samsung Galaxy J2 4 G  from the O.P No. 1   on payment of consideration  an amount of Rs. Rs.8,400/-  on Dt. 27.10.2015  (copies of the  retail  invoice) marked as Annexure-I.  On perusal of the record we observed  the complainant   availing     free  service,    but  no improvement  made in the above set.    Hence the  complainant  on  complained to the O.Ps to replace the defective set with a new one.

In the  catena of  judgements  the Hon’ble Supreme Court and  Hon’ble National Commission observed when a  consumer purchases goods   from the O.Ps he has  not only purchased  the mobile  but  also  the service associated with  it.

Further this forum observed   frequently  the complainant had to run  to the service centre for  rectification of the above set.  The complainant  not satisfied with the  running of the above set. The complainant  expressed  during the course of hearing  that defects could not be rectified by the O.Ps inspite of  repeated attempts  and it rendered useless to him.  Further the complainant  argued  the O.Ps are falsely alleging that they have rectified all the defects and the same is beyond  their capacity for rectification  since the  above set is with patent manufacturing  defects.

The complainant made several complaints with the O.Ps pointing out the defects  which goes on to show that  right from  the very beginning  the above set was not performing  well and continued to repeatedly develop defects  resulting  in  non-performance which was intimated by the complainant  to the O.Ps. Further we observed on repeated complaints made  by the complainant to the O.Ps neither the defects have been removed nor replaced  with a new.   We observed  inspite of  required  services made  with in the  warranty  period  the above set could not be rectified.  We  hold   at this stage if the above set required frequent servicing then it can be presumed that it is a manufacturing defect. If a defective goods is supplied a consumer is entitled to get refund of the price of the  above set  or to replace with a new set and also the consumer concerned is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet the mental agony. In the instant case as it appears that the  above  set which was purchased by the complainant has developed  defects and the O.Ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period.   

The  O.Ps  are jointly  and several liable in the present case.

 

In the above facts, circumstances  & on perusal of the record, the complaint petition,   documents, written argument  and referring on above Citations there  exists a strong “prima-facie” case in favor of the complainant.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.        

                                               

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER.

 In the result with these observation, findings, discussion  the complaint petition is allowed in part  on contest against  the O.P No. 3 & 4   and  exparte against  the O.P. No.1 & 2..

The  O.P No.  3 & 4   is  directed to refund the cost of the mobile set  i.e. Rs. Rs.8,400/- and pay  compensation of Rs.500/-  for mental agony undergone by the complainant and cost of Rs.500/-.

The O.P. No.1 & 2 are directed to refer the matter  to the O.P. No. 3 & 4  for immediate compliance.

            The O.Ps are  ordered to comply the above direction within one month from the date of  receipt of this order. Serve the copies of the order to the parties.

 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced  on this       7^th.        Day of         November             ,   2017.

 

 Member.                                           Member                                                                      President