DATE OF FILING : 08/09/2014
DATE OF S/R : 28/10/2014
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 26/12/2014
NIVEDITA SHARMA
wife of V.K. Sharma,
17/1, Rameshwar Malia Lane,
P.S. Howrah, District Howrah ,
PIN 711101 represented by
Mr. V.K. Sharma……………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. M/S MANNAT TELECOM
8, Rameshwar Malia Lane,
P.S. Howrah
Howrah 711101.
2. M/S Samsung Service Centre
112, G.T. Road (South)
Near Sandhya Bazar,
Howrah 711101……..………………………..……………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1.Complainant, Nivedita Sharma, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to replace the defective mobile set or to refund the purchase price of Rs.8700 alongwith interest, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation,Rs.5000 as litigation cost along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
2.Brief fact of the case is the complainant purchased one mobile set from O.P. 1, Samsung make, on 01.08.2014 for Rs.8700/- vide annexure B.A the time of purchase there was one year warranty from the date of purchase on the said mobile. But on 08.08.2014 when complaint inserted her newly purchased AIRTEL SIM in the said mobile, it showed ‘No SIM’ on its screen. Complainant immediately rushed to O.P. 1 and after checking the set, he advised her to go to O.P. 2, being the authorized service centre of Samsung Company. So on 09.08.2014 she visited the O.P. 2 and O.P. 2, after checking the said mobile, told the complainant that 1st SIM SOCKET / SLOT of the set is damaged and requited to be repaired by replacing the entire circuit board. Also O.P. 2 informed the complainant that as the SIM socket in damaged, the product became out of warranty vide annexure C. Thereafter she again came to O.P. 1 but O.P. 1 told her that warranty is provided by the manufacturer and as the service centre of the manufacturer denied to repair the set, O.P. 1 has nothing to do in this respect. But complainant was pressing upon either replacement of the set or refund of the purchase price. But O.Ps. remained silent. So being aggrieved and frustrated, complainant filed this instant case with aforesaid relief.
3.Notices were served up on O.Ps. O.P. 1 appeared and filed W/V but O.P. 2 neither appeared nor filed any W/V. Accordingly the case was heard on contest against o.p. no. 1 and ex parte against o.p. no. 2.
4.Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5.Both the points are taken up together for consideration. O.P. 1 has stated in its W/V that warranty is provided by the manufacturer and not by the dealer. It is alleged by them that the set was purchased on 01.08.2014 and the problem of ‘NO SIM’ as shown by the set was ventilated on 08.08.2014 to O.P. 1 and subsequently on 09.08.2014 complainant went to O.P. 2 where it was declared by O.P. 2 that as the socket was broken, the SIM could not be fixed properly. So ‘No SIM’ was being displayed. O.P. 2 also noted that it became out of warranty. Here we take a pause. It is not at all mandatory that immediately after the purchase of a set, SIM is to be inserted. At the time of installing the SIM complainant faced the problem, and she immediately went to O.P. 1 . O.P. 1 sent her to O.P. 2. It is true that warranty is provide by the manufacturer. And the service centré of the manufacturer i.e., O.P. 2 returned the complainant without giving her post sale service. Moreover, O.P. 2 noted on the job sheet that the product became out of warranty. But O.P. 1 during the course of hearing submitted politely that they were ready and willing to replace the mobile set in question, from the very beginning. But complainant filed this instant case on 08.09.2014 which was too early to redress a grievance.
Under the above promises, we allow the complaint petition in part with cost against O.P. 1 and dismissed ex parte without cost against O.P. 2.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 489 of 2041 ( HDF 489 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. no. 1 and dismissed ex parte against o.p. no. 2 without costs.
That the O.P. 1 is directed to replace the Mobile set in question with a brand new set of same quality and price with fresh warranty within one month from this date.
The O.P. 1 is further directed to pay Rs.500/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
No order as to compensation.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
