DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
………………..
Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara,President.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 30th day of March 2016.
C.C.No.83 of 2014.
Gyanaranjan Jena, son of Rabindra Nath Jena,Qr.No.2RA68,Road No.5,
Unit-9,Bhubaneswar, At present residing at High School para, Titilagarh,
P.O/P.S-Titilagarh , Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, Office at Janpath,
Bhubaneswar.
2.M/S.Mahesh Enterprises, Authorized Dealer of Samsung Mobile.
At-Samaleswari Chowk, Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv.for the complainant- Sri R.Rath & Associates.
Adv. For the O.P.No.1- Sri R.Sahoo & Associates.
Adv.for the O.P.No.2 - None.
Date of filing of the case- 25.11.2014
Date of order - 30.3.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara,President.
1. Succinctly put, the complainant purchased one Samsung Galaxy Note-3 6M-N900 (JET BLACK) through online booking on dt.10th August 2014 under Invoice for DCBJ7X bRR and InvoiceNo.MH-BOMI-141788371-1769. By order ID-403-3122943-9763535 against consideration Rs 38,299/- from”OFFICE SHOP PRIVATE LIMITED, Prathmesh Complex, Buildig No.H.Opp Vatika, Restaurant, Mumbai- Nasik Highway No.3, Bhiwandi Bypass Road, Bhiwandi-421302, Maharastra-India.
2. The complainant also averred he resides at High School Para, Titilagarh, Dist-Bolangir. The product carries an warranty period of one year. After use of two months, the profduct develop defects such as black spot in the display Tab, No scratch on Aesthetics was detected during the submission of mobile phone so for rectification, the mobile has been placed before O.Ps on dt.17.10.2014 and charged with Rs 8,650/- in replacement of TSP.
3. It is further stated, as the product carries one year warranty so, the O.P is duty bound to ensure removal of defect and replacement without any payment. Charging for the job work within the tenure of warranty is illegal. Again the O.P.2 has replaced TSP of old one, taking the charge of New TSP replacement. The fact reported on dt.18.10.2014 and till the institution of the case, the defects persists to the nature that the mobile gets hanged and battery is not charging.
4. On dt.5.1.2014,the regional office at Bhubaneswar flatly denied to entertain any defect as same is inherent in the process of manufactured.
5. It is also stated, the company or the service centre is too callous in rectification of any defect and threatening not to entertain any complaint any more, so in a such circumstances the purchase of the product is no effective or useless as the non functional is continuous irrespective of their knowledge. So prayed for relief’s and refund of the price or replacement as deems fit. Relied on cash Memorandum, job cards and money receipt No.2508 and affidavit.
6. In pursuant to notice, the O.P.1 appeared on dt.16.4.2015 and failed to file any version till dt.15.092015.Latter even not prefer to attend the court.
7. The notice is served on O.P.2, although being sufficient under sub section (4) of 28A of C.P.Act. None present to prosecute the issue before forum. Under the above circumstances, the District Forum proceed as the procedure laid down in Section 13(2) of the C.P.Act,1986.
8. Heard the complainant at length and perused the materials on record.
9. Perusal of records speaks, the transaction has been effected and Samsung GalaxyNote-3 (SM-N900)has been purchased against a paid sum of Rs 38,229/-subsequent to purchase , the mobile develops some technical snag in functional. The job card of 14/10/14 Samsung Service Centre reveals the nature of complaint is reported ‘Black spot “ in display pad and on dt. 05/10/14 same is received on dead condition and not charging and on dt. 18/10/14 the complainant relates TSP Searches, N/W fluctuations etc, The money receipt no-2508, dt. 17/04/14 has been collected against paid of Rs 8650/- for TSP replacement by the authorized Samsung Service Centre , Sudpara, Brajabhumi, Balangir.
10. In this context we prefer to rely on the decision in which it is held-Business of providing services in internet portal to interested buyers and sellers by acting as a means of communication between Them and bringing into existence contracts of sale and purchase of movable goods comes within ambit of Consumer Protection Act 1986-Rediff.com India Ltd. Vs M/S Urmit Manjal -201393) CLT 79 (NC).The above facts amply speaks, the O.Ps are in knowledge and rectification done is unsatisfactory and also paid for defects during warranty. Neither the O.Ps prefer to participate in the hearing which is conspicously callous and non-deligent in nature. The petitioner has sustained loss, harassment and mental agony for irresponsibility in rendering service for such intimated defect and short comings in a highly costly products . Even though the technical engineer come to the conclusion that the product no more requires rectification rather replacement as the model in question suffers chronic defects in inherently and it is settled principle when a defect persists in the product in one or other way, the same needs to be replaced or refunded at the service centre’s recommendation to the manufacturer. In this case although the manufacturer has appeared and not prefer to file the version willfully to make twist the core question in future on this score we can say “ Extension of time for filing written version shall not be granted just as a matter of routine”- Held in – M/S.Dudhal Associates ( A partnership firm_ Vs Mr Swatantra Kumar Mishra – 2014(1) CPR-471 (NC).
11. Further to say, the case has ample evidence that service centre has collected Rs 8,650/- towards TSP replacement but to what extent the collection is reasoned within the warranty period. That has not been explained and it is matter of concern, the replaced TSP is an old one and the replacement did not provide lasting rectification in setting the mobile to its functional order. So the O.Ps have no face to advance any plea for which remain silent. Therefore we come to conclusion, the O.Ps miserably failed to render perfect service to the petitioner within reasonable and also adduce or made any attempt to corroborate the failings are reasonable and justified so the negligence on the part of the O.Ps are substantive and clinched with the provision of the Act as descripted u/s.(2)(b) and (g) of the act as envisioned.
12. In view of the above noted discussion and substantive materials on record, the case is allowed on merit.
ORDER.
The O.Ps are liable to pay the petitioner jointly and severally for the loss and harassment sustained. The O.Ps are liable to pay a sum of Rs 38,299/- (Rupees Thirty eight thousand two hundred &ninety nine) along with Rs 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only as compensation inclusive of legal expenses within 30 days of this order failing which interest @ 12% per annum will accrue till realization and in submission of old one to the shop keeper or O.Ps.
(ii). The O.Ps failed to attend in call of the forum willfully so they are liable to pay a penalty of Rs 2,000/- each to the petitioner within the above noted time frame, failing which @ 20/- per day will accrue in non compliance from the date of order till the date of realization without fail.
(iii). The order passed on 18.5.2015 has been termed as final as there is no appeal is preferred. So O.Ps are jointly liable to pay a sum of Rs 200/- per day x 10 months (300) days = Rs 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand) within above time frame. Non compliance will also incur a penalty of Rs 5/- per day from the date of order till realization and interim orders passed hitherto is hereby vacated.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2016.
(G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
