In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.  72 / 2009

1)           Ms. Seema Wanchoo,

3, Britannia Court, 32B, New Road,

Kolkata-700027.                                                     ---------- Complainant

---Verses---

1)           M/s Samsung Inida Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

10A, Lee Road, Pressman House, Gr. Floor,

Kolkata-700020.

2)           S. Mobile,

17/1D, Alipore Road, Kolkata-27.

3)           Samsung,

12, Loudon Street, Kolkata-17.                              ---------- Opposite Party

Present :           Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

                        Sri T.K. Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.   1 0     Dated  2 4 / 0 2 / 2 0 1 0 .

The instant case arises out of the complaint u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 made by Smt. Seema Wanchoo against the o.ps. with a prayer to (a) replace the handset that the o.ps. damaged in the name of repairing, (b) pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony and (c) pay the complainant the costs of litigation and (d) any further order or orders as the Forum thinks fit and proper.

          Specific case is that the complainant purchased a Samsung mobile handset bearing model no.SGH-D900 and IMEI no.359436012587880 from M/s. S. Mobile, 17/1D, Alipore Road, Nandan Market, Kolkata-27 for Rs.11,800/- vide the Seller’s Tax Invoice no. Nov-012 dt.2.11.07 (annex-1).

          The handset was functioning with no apparent problem for one year, i.e. within the warranty period.

          Just after the expiry of the warranty period, the handset developed a peculiar problem regarding the charging of its battery with the regular charger.

          The battery could not be charged in the normal procedure of charging by inserting the pin of the charger provided with the handset in the pinhole of the handset.

          The mobile hand set could only be charged only with the help of a computer and using the other charger provided with the handset.

          It is averred that whenever the battery of the handset was charged with the help of a computer using the other charger, the battery could not hold charge even for a day.

          It is further averred that the alarming point is that this peculiar problem developed just after the expiry of the warranty period. It appears to the complainant that M/s. Samsung, the manufacturer, used sub standard materials in manufacturing the set knowing fully well that problems would develop after the expiry of the warranty period and then the consumer could not make any claim for replacement of the defective handset.

          On a check of the handset, it appeared that the pinhole of the hand set was broken. So, the complainant went to o.p. no.1 on 20.12.08 for repairing the defect.

          After checking her handset, the o.p. no.1 told her that the charge would be approximately Rs.340/- for repair of the defect, to which she agreed. Copy of he estimated slip is appended hereto (annex-2).

          The o.p. forced her to sign a declaration to the effect that she would not put any claim for any damage caused by them during repair. When she protested they simply refused to repair her handset saying that no authorized service centre of M/s. Samsung would repair the handset unless she would sign the declaration.

          Finding no other way, she had to sign the declaration (annex-4).

          As requested by the o.p., the complainant visited the shop of the o.p. after five days, i.e. on 26.12.08 to take delivery of her handset, but she was shocked when the o.p. asked her to pay Rs.3700/- towards the cost of repairing the handset mentioning that the “PVA” circuit was broken.

          Since the o.p. has not mentioned of such defect when they had checked the handset and ‘issued the estimate slip on 20.12.08, the complainant refused to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.3701/- since the ‘PVA’ circuit was broken/damaged by them.

          It is further averred by the complainant that the o.p. had clear intentions in the entire matter is evident from the fact that when she shifted the onus of repair on the o.p., they showed her the declaration signed by her and stated that she would not be able to make them liable for such damages. 

          Finding no other way, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Asstt. Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Kolkata South Region soliciting his intervention for redressal for her grievances. Accordingly, a tripartite meeting was convened for resolving the dispute through the process of mediation on 22.1.09 vide his letter no.M-114/KS/08-09 (annex-3).

          But the o.p. did not turn up in the said meeting and they intimated the Asstt. Director that they would not accept the terms of the complainant. 

          Hence, the complainant lodged this case u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 for her redressal on 11.2.09.

          Decision with reasons :

          The Samsung mobile set bearing no. SGH-D9001 and IMEI no.349436012587880 was purchased by the complainant from M/s. S. Mobile, 17/ID, Alipore Road, Nandan  Market, Kolkata-27 for Rs.11800/- (annex-1).

          But the after the warranty period of one year, the complainant faced the problem of charging the battery of the handset.

          Being beset with problems of charging the battery, the complainant lodged the complaint against the o.p, who charged her Rs.340/- approximately. But later, the o.p. has charged Rs.3700/- towards the cost of repairing of the handset mentioning that the PVA circuit was broken. But it is worth mentioning that at the time of accepting the handset for repair, the o.p. has stated that the pinhole was broken and for which they were charging Rs.340/- approximately and had not mentioned any defect in respect of broken ‘PVA’ circuit.

          Moreover, in taking about all the circumstances stated above, there is no doubt that the declaration signed by the complainant was under duress and later the charges of Rs.3700/- made by the o.p. is nothing but unfair trade practices.

          Since the o.ps. did not appear before the Forum ex parte order of hearing was ordered in order no.6 dt.24.8.09.

          The o.ps. have waived their rights by themselves to defend themselves by non submission of w/v. as per Section 115 of Evidence Act.

          On perusal of the petition of complaint, evidence on affidavit and documents of record, it is quite evident that he complainant succeeded the case.

          Hence, ordered,

          that the o.p. no.1 is directed to (1) replace the Samsung mobile handset of the same model with a new one and if the model is not available, the price of the handset as per annex-1 of the petition of complaint should be paid on receipt of the defective mobile handset from the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order and in default, the said money will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till its full payment, (2) pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for causing agonies and harassment to the complainant within 30 days from the date of the communication of this order and in default, the amount will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till its full payment and (3) pay litigation cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order and in default, the amount will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till the full payment is made.

          Fees paid are correct.

          Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on receipt of prescribed fees.

        _____Sd-____                                                            _____Sd-______

          MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT