ORDER
V. K. DABAS, MEMBER
The case of the complainant is that she had purchased a Samsung mobile manufactured by OP1 vide invoice no. 2411501813 amounting to Rs. 3499/- on 10.11.2011 from OP3. It is alleged by the complainant that the mobile started giving problem after some times of its purchase i.e. it used to turn switched off by itself and on switching on it used to turn switched on but on 16.10.2012 it turned switched off by itself and did not switch on at all (despite best efforts by the complainant). Also it is alleged by the complainant that husband of the complainant lodged a complaint with OP2 (Customer Service Center) ofOP1 on 17.9.2012 vide claim no. -313856929 and he was informed by OP2 that since there was a major defect in the mobile it will take two days to repair it and hence he made a request for a substitute mobile which was denied by OP2, after two days when husband of the complainant contacted OP2 he was informed that the mobile will be handed over to him after 3 days as some problem still existed in the mobile and also his request for substitute mobile was again denied. It is further alleged by the complainant that Husband of the complainant on assurance of OP2 received the mobile after repairs on 21-9-2012 unchecked as the OP2 had promised that they were unable to check the mobile as the battery was discharged. It is alleged that husband of the complainant again deposited the mobile with OP2 on 27-9-2012 vide claim no. 4139918343 as the mobile was still giving some problems and he was promised by OP2 that since some part of the mobile was not available it will repair the mobile by evening and informed him but till 29.9.2012 there was no response by the OP. It is further allege by the complainant that the mobile was by handed over the husband of the complainant and was delivered on 29-9-2012 on intervention of the call center and still the mobile is not working properly. Hence, the complaint.
The OP has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement. In the written statement , the OP has submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant had deliberately concealed various material facts and the complaint has been filed on false and frivolous grounds. It is submitted that the said issue was raised by the complainant after 10 months of the purchase of the mobile and it was working fine for 10 months hence, there is no question of manufacturing defect. It is further submitted that the complainant had visisted the service center of the OP only once.
In the evidence, the complainant has reiterated the contents of the complaint by way of affidavit and has put on record copies of bill of purchasing mobile, copies of complaint dated 17-9-2012 and 27-9-2012 and copies of correspondence with OP1 through e-mails. The OP has also corroborated the contents of the written statement by way of affidavit in its evidence.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
The mobile handset did not give the required sevice nd started giving trouble just after some time of its purchase.
In R. Sachdev Vs. ICICI Bank, , FA762/06 decided on 29.11.2006 the Hon’ble State Commission held:-
“ what is the use of such good or article if it loses its utility after a period of one month of its purchase . The object of the Consumer Protection Act, it is safeguard the interests of the consumers against the unscrupulous manufactures or traders for selling substandard or defective goods.”
In another case titled Col. Ravinder Pal Brar Vs. Asian Motors, FA 73/06 decided on 28.9.2007 , the Hon’ble State Commission held:-
“ The disputes between the consumer and the service providers and traders should be ended once for all by calling upon the traders and manufacturers to refund the cost of the goods with adequate compensation as the possibility of the new goods also being defective and not being up to the satisfaction of the consumers, cannot be ruled out and in that case parties will be relegated to square one and will suffer another bout of litigation.”
The husband of the complainant was a patient and was under treatment under Medanata Hospital and was advised to remain in contact with doctors and when the complainant was in dire need of the mobile it started giving trouble and the husband of the complainant deposited the mobile with the service center of the manufacturer on 17.9.2012 for rectifying the defect . Though the service center repaired and returned back the mobile on 21.9.2012 ,the mobile still did not work properly. The complainant again deposited the mobile with the manufacturer on 279.2012. The service center of the OP1 again repaired the mobile but even then the mobile did not work properly . The mobile handset was kept by the service center of OP1 for about 20 days and the complainant was not even provided with another mobile by the service center of OP1. Therefore, In view of the judgment cited by us above and the facts and the circumstances of the case we are
of the considered opinion that OP1is guilty of deficiency in service under the consumer protection act and accordingly we direct as under:-
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 3499/- a s refund of the cost of the mobile.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 5000/- a s compensation for pain and agony suffered by the complainant.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 5000/- a s cost of litigation.
- The complainant shall return the handset after receiving the above mentioned amount.
The OP1 shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. IF the OP1 fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
