BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of April 2014
Filed on : 17/12/2012
PRESENT:
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.788/2012
Between
Rendeep Prem, : Complainant
S/o. K.A. Prem, Advocate, (By Adv. Pramoj Abraham,
Kallungal house, Pachalam, M/s. P.F. Thomas Associates,
Kochi-12. Pachalam, Kochi-12)
Vs
1. M/s. Samsung India., : Opposite parties
Electronics Pvt. Ltd, 7th Floor, (Notice to o.p 1 not completed)
IFCI, Tower 61, Nehru Palace,
New Delhi-110 019.
2. The Proprietor, Mobile King,
Basement Floor, Penta Menaka, (O.P.2 absent)
Shanmugham road,
Ernakulam, Kochi.
3. The Manager, (3rd o.p.by Adv. A.P. Subhash,
Samsung Care, GCDA Complex, Jewel Arcade, Layam road, Kochi-11)
Menaka, Shanmugham road,
Cochin-18.
O R D E R
V.K.Beena Kumari ,Member.
The facts of the complainant are as shown below:
The complainant is working as Asst. Manager in a reputed Munnar Company in Munnar and he purchased a brand new Samsung mobile
manufactured by 1st opposite party from 2nd opposite party dealer on
16-12-2011 at a price of Rs. 32,500/-. The handset started showing numerous defects from the very 1st month of its purchase. The main defect was that the handset “hangs” every now and then or the screen of the hand set turns in sensitive and on such occasion the entire function of the mobile handset gets stuck, to restart the mobile handset it takes 5 to 7 minutes to become fully functional. After a few months the handset started “hanging” during each and every incoming call. The mobile handset would ‘hang at least twice a day even after servicing it by 3rd opposite party on two occasions. Due to the defects of the handset, the complainant is not able to attend to many important calls. All the data in the handset was erased by 3rd opposite party, despite specific direction from the complainant, during the 1st servicing which included software the complainant had brought from Google Play store which cost about Rs. 5,250/- along with much valuable documents and contacts. The silver coating on the sides of the mobile handset flakes off giving the handset a cheap look and the mobile gives a talk time of 45 to 50 minutes as against the promised talk time of 26 hrs. The complainant also submitted that the hand set gets extremely hot while browsing the internet and the phone charger was also defective. In view of the above facts the complainant filed this complaint seeking direction against the opposite parties to replace the defective hand set or to refund Rs. 32,500/- being the price of the handset along with interest and to pay Rs. 2,000/- for the loss of soft wares, Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant and costs of proceedings.
2. The version filed by the 3rd opposite party is as follows:
It is submitted that the complainant approached this forum without any bonafides and with uncleaned hands, that the 3rd opposite party had done everything possible as an authorized service centre of Samsung India Electronics that the allegations in paragraph 1 to 6 of the complaint are denied by the 3rd opposite party, that in the reception counter itself of the 3rd opposite party, it is conspicuously written in big letters to back up your data before submitting it for service” and the employees of the 3rd opposite party usually inform the customers regarding the precautionary measures to be adopted before submitting the hand set for service, that the complainant ought to have taken necessary arrangements to preserve the data in his hand set before submitting it for service in the 3rd opposite party’s institution, therefore 3rd opposite party is not at all responsible for the loss of any software as alleged by the complainant. It is submitted by the 3rd opposite party that in the absence of any evidence to ascertain the services done, the 3rd opposite party is not in a position to divulge any details of service provided by 3rd opposite party. Therefore it is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed with costs to 3rd opposite party.
3. Neither oral nor documentary evidences adduced by the complainant except the original copy of Retail invoice filed by the complainant. The complainant was absent on the date of hearing. The notice issued to 1st opposite party returned unserved with remarks ‘left’. The 2nd opposite party was absent despite the notice served on 2nd opposite party. Heard the counsel for the 3rd opposite party.
4. This Forum considered the complaint filed by the complainant and the version filed by the 3rd opposite party. It is found from the original retail invoice No. B-8970/Form No. 8B dated 16-12-2011 that the complainant
had purchased a sam sung galaxy Note N 7000 hand set at a price of Rs. 32,250/-. The complaint is that the handset showed several defects right
from the 1st month of its purchase and that even after servicing of the handset on two occasions, the defects remained uncured. The complainant prayed for replacement of the handset with a new handset or refund of the price of the handset but no evidence adduced before this Forum to establish that the handset is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect except the written complaint before this Forum. However it is true that the complainant had purchased a mobile handset for Rs. 32,500/- from 2nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party and that there is nothing on record to discard the genuine claims of the complainant. The complainant being a consumer of the product manufactured by the 1st opposite party he is entitled to get defect free handset for which he had effected payment of Rs. 32,500/-. The opposite parties are jointly and severally responsible for not issuing a defect free handset. Therefore the opposite parties are directed to replace all the defective parts of the handset free of cost and to return the same in a perfect working condition to the complainant since the hand set was not working properly from the very 1st month of its purchase. Considering the inconveniences caused to the complainant an amount of Rs. 2,000/- is also awarded to the complainant towards compensation. No costs awarded to the complainant. The prayer for the complainant to pay cost of soft wares which the complainant had brought from Google play store is disallowed for want of evidence.
5. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and we direct as follows:
1) The opposite parties 2 & 3 shall jointly and severally replace all the defective parts of the handset of the complainant free of cost and return the same to the complainant in a perfect working condition.
2) the opposite parties 2 & 3 shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation to the complainant.
The above order shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount would carry interest @ 12% p.a. till realization.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of April 2014.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K.Member.
Sd/-
A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
