BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.01/2015

Dated this the 20^th day of May 2015.

K. Bascarane, S/o.Krishnasamy

No.176, Subbaiah Nagar, Thattanchavady

Puducherry-605 009.                                                          ….       Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s.Accord Mobile Gallery

    Rep. by its Authorised Signatory

    No.309, Anna Salai,

    Pondicherry-1.

2. M/s.Nano Tech Solutions

    Samsung Service Centre,

    Rep. by its Authorised Signatory

    No.635, M.G. Road, Thippu Sahib

    Street, Pondicherry-1.

3. M/s.Sri Padma Customer Care,

    Rep. by its Authorised Signatory

    Iyyanar Koil Street,

    (Behind New Bus Stand)

    Iyyanar Nagar, Pondicherry-13.                                               ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

            THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

            PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT                      :  Thiru.S.Savariram, Advocate.

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:          :  Exparte

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to:

1. Direct the first opposite party to take back the defective product, i.e. "Samsung S Duos—GT-7562" (Black) Mobile phone, IMEI/Serial Number 355995056356365) purchased under the invoice No.10749 dated 10.07.2013 and to refund the cost of the Mobile phone to the tune of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. (Under section 14(1)(c) of C.P. Act).
2. Directing the opposite parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the hardship, humiliation, harassment, suffering and mental agony suffered by him upon the act of opposite parties on account of deficiency of service on their part (Under section 14(1) (d) of C.P. Act)
3. Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of this complaint (under section 14(1)(i) fo C.P. Act)
4. Pass such other necessary orders that may be deemed fit and necessary in the interest of justice.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

He has purchased a "Samsung S Duos—GT-7562" (Black) Mobile phone, IMEI/Serial Number 355995056356365) from the first opposite party under invoice no.10749 dated 10.07.2013 for a sum of Rs.12,000/-. At the time of purchase, the first opposite party represented that this model is one of the excellent product and have so many special features.  The first opposite party provided with Battery No.LCID316ES/2-B and the charger No.DW2D318DS/M-E.  On the fourth day of purchase, the complainant faced the problem of (i) the outgoing calls not activating but gives result, "call ended" in Sim 1, (ii) whenever outgoing calls are made the Mobile Phone takes longer time for sending i.e. to get connectivity and (iii) when the mobile is in activation it automatically disconnect in Sim 1 and 2. Due to these problems, the complainant not satisfied with the performance of the mobile phone. On 21.08.2013, he approached the first opposite party, explained the problems in the mobile and sought for replacement, as the product is within the warranty period.  The first opposite party openly refused to replace the mobile as per the undertaking and say some lame excuses. On several occasions he approached the first opposite party and explained to him about the problem he is facing while using the mobile phone, but the first opposite party is least bothered to hear the complainant and finally gave the second opposite party address in order to get service assistance to rectify the problem.

3.         On 21.08.2013 the complainant approached the second opposite party and explained his problem with the mobile phone.  With an assurance to rectify the problem, the second opposite party made a service bill no.4157848793 dated 21.08.2013.  After three days, he collected the mobile phone under bonafide thought that the problem is rectified. When he started using the phone, the same problem continues and it is not at all rectified.  Again on 11.09.2013, he handed over the mobile phone to the second opposite party for repair vide service bill No.4159269002. Despite alleged service done by the second opposite party till date the complainant is still facing the problem in his mobile phone and as such the mobile is not in usage. 

4.         The complainant again approached the first opposite party and explained his precarious situation in using the defective mobile phone, this time the first opposite party gave the address of the third opposite party for service. He also approached the third opposite party for service assistance, even the third opposite party did not in a position to identify the problem persist in the defective mobile, however the second and third opposite parties categorically would say that the complainant mobile is a defective product. On 21.09.2013, he sent mail to the Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., elucidating the entire problem while using the mobile phone but there was no response from the company.   Therefore the act of the company as well as 1 to 3 opposite parties shows their negligent act, deficient in service and unfair trade practice. The purpose of purchasing the mobile phone is for regular usage but what remains is that only harassment and mental agony because of deficient product sold by the first opposite party.  The complainant issued a lawyer notice on 06.03.2014.  The said notice was duly received by the second and third opposite parties on 08.03.2014.  The first opposite party deliberately refused to receive the lawyer's notice and the same was returned un-served on 10.03.2014.  There was no response from the opposite parties for the lawyer notice. Hence this complaint.

5.         The opposite parties remained absent and were set exparte.

6.         On the side of the complainant, he has chosen to examine himself as CW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C8 and MO.1 (Mobile phone, Battery and charger)

 7.        Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer for the opposite parties?
2. Whether any defective goods supplied by the first opposite and any deficiency in service attributed by the opposite parties?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

8.         Point No.1:

            The complainant has purchased a Samsung S Duos-GT-S 7562 (Black) mobile phone from the first opposite party under Ex.C1 dated 10.07.2013 for a sum of Rs.12,000/- and handed over to the second and third opposite parties for service. Hence the complainant is the consumer for the opposite parties.

9.         Point No.2:

            We have perused the pleadings, Exs.C1 to C8 and heard the arguments adduced by the complainant.  The opposite parties were served, called absent and set exparte. From the available records, it is clear that the complainant has purchased a Samsung S Duos –GT-S7562 (Black) Mobil phone IME/Serial No.355995056356365 with battery and charger from the first opposite party on 01.07.2013 for a sum of Rs.12,000/-.  The Ex.C1 is the consignment bill of the first opposite party.  The complainant submits that after fourth day of purchase the above said mobile phone MO.1 not functioning to the satisfaction of the complainant.  The complainant faced the problem at the time of using the said mobile phone (i) the outgoing calls not activating but gives result, "call ended" in Sim 1, (ii) whenever outgoing calls are made the Mobile Phone takes longer time for sending i.e. to get connectivity and (iii) when the mobile is in activation it automatically disconnect in Sim 1 and 2.  To that effect the complainant approached the first opposite party on 21.08.2013 and expresses his grievance in using the defective product and sought for replacement,  being the MO.1 covered under warranty.  The first opposite party directed the complainant to approach the second opposite to get service assistance to rectify the problem.

10.       On the same day on 21.08.2013 the complainant approached the second opposite party and explained the problem persist in the MO.1 and the second opposite party made an undertaking to rectify the problem.  Ex.C2 is the service request contain the defect as "Call ended problem".  The allegation of the complainant is that the second opposite party has without doing any repair or service they simply returned the MO.1 to the complainant.  Again the complainant handed over the MO.1 to the second opposite party for the same problem on 11.09.2013 vide Ex.C3.  Even after repeated attempt made by both the complainant and the opposite parties 1 and 2, the same problems persist in the mobile phone i.e. MO.1.   To resolve the problem the complainant approached the third opposite party to identify the problem persist in the defective mobile.  All the efforts take by the complainant ended in vain.

11.       The complainant further submits that on 21.09.2013 he sent Ex.C4 the mail to the Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., elucidating the entire problem and it was not responded by them.  The complainant having no other option except to send the legal notice to the opposite parties on 06.03.2014 vide Ex.C5.  Ex.C6 is the returned cover of legal notice Ex.C5 endorsed as refused.  Ex.C7 and C8 are the acknowledgement cards for the proof of delivery of Ex.C5 to the opposite parties 2 and 3. 

12.       The opposite parties have not chosen to give reply for Ex.C5 and not appeared before this Forum to file their reply version.  The complainant clearly proved his case by filing exhibits and MO.1(Mobile phone, Battery and charger)  before this Forum and adduced oral evidence in support of his claims.  The complainant established the defect in the MO.1 and deficiency in service attributed by the opposite parties.  Hence the complainant is entitled for his claim and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the same.

13.       Point No.3:

            In view of the decision taken in point no.2, this complaint is hereby allowed.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to

1. Refund the cost of the mobile phone to the tune of Rs.12,000/- to the complainant.
2. Pay a sum of Rs.                         as compensation to the complainant.
3. Pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

            The opposite parties are entitled to get back the MO.1(Mobile phone, Battery and charger) after compliance of this order.

Dated this the 20^th day of May 2015.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS WITNESS:  

CW.1              21.04.2015                K. Bascarane

OPPOSITE PARTYS WITNESS:  Nil

COMPLAINANTS EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTYS EXHIBITS: Nil

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER