This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant, Saroj Kanti Sinha.
The case of the complainant’s in short is that complainant purchased a mobile phone of Samsung Z300(Z3) Gold, Mob. Sl. No.353418072865410 from the shop of the opposite party No.1 on 4th June, 2016.
That after a few days of purchase the mobile phone became malfunctioning such as getting hung frequently and as a result the complainant had faced great difficulties to his day to day work. The complainant went to the shop of the opposite party No.1 for rectification of the difficulty but the opposite party could not rectify the problem of the said mobile. Thereafter the complainant told the opposite party No.1 either to replace the same or to refund the price of the mobile. But the opposite party No.1 neither replaces the mobile nor refunded the price of the mobile phone.
On 26.9.2016 the complainant went to the office of the opposite party No.2 i.e. Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Mobile Division) at Kolkata and submitted one complaint to Bharati Chandra of the said company who advised the complainant to meet Mr. Bijoy Dhanuka of Shree Krishna Service, Serampur for necessary rectification. As per advice of the opposite party No.2 the complainant visited the Shree Krishna Service centre, Serampore in the month of October, 2016 (on 5.10.2016 & 15.10.2016) but ultimately the service centre failed to rectify the mobile phone.
Thereafter, as per advice of the Service Manager, Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd. the complainant went to the Samsung Customer Centre at Karuna Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Dutta House, Kolkata- 700 020 for rectification of the problem but they were also unable to rectify the problem of the mobile. The complainant on several times visited shop room of the opposite party No.1 for refund of money but no fruitful result comes out.
Finding no other alternative the complainant has filed this case before this Forum for relief with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to replace the mobile phone by a new one with same model to the complainant, to pay Rs.70,000/- towards compensation for unnecessary harassment and mental agony, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
Though the notice was received by the opposite parties on 1.6.2017 but did not turn up to contest the case. So, the proceedings run ex-parte against the opposite party No.1 & 2.
Complainant filed evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument which are taken into consideration for passing final order.
ISSUES / POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1). Whether the Complainant Saroj Kanti Sinha is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3).Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
(1).Whether the Complainant Saroj Kanti Sinha is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The complainant herein is the consumer of the OP, as the complainant being the purchaser of the said mobile set paid consideration money and so he is entitled to get service from the opposite party as consumer.
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite parties are residents/having office address within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued Rs.80,000/- for loss sustained by the complainant and as compensation for mental agony and other expenses and to replace the mobile by a new one with same model or refund the price of the mobile set ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
At the time of argument the complainant argued that he purchased a mobile phone of Samsung making being No. Samsung Z300(Z3) Gold Mob. Sl.No.353418072865410 from the shop of the opposite party No.1 on 4.6.2016. But after a few days of purchase the said mobile phone started malfunctioning and for which the complainant had faced an immense difficulty to his day to day work. The complainant went to the showroom of the opposite party No.1 for repairing the mobile phone but opposite party No.1 could not rectify the problem. The complainant demanded before the opposite party No.1 to replace the mobile phone of same model by a new one or to refund the price money. But opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant went to the office of the Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Mobile Division) at Kolkata and submitted a complaint before Mrs. Bharati Chandra of the said company who advised the complainant to meet Mr. Bijoy Dhanuka of Shree Krishna Service, Serampore for necessary rectification. As per advice of Bharati Chandra the complainant in the month of October, 2016 visited Shree Krishna Service, Serampore but ultimately they also failed to repair the mobile in question. Thereafter the complainant went to the Samsung Customer Centre at Karuna Management Services Pvt. Ltd., Dutta House, Kolkata-20 for rectification of the problem as per advice of Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Service Manager, Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd.). But problem of the mobile phone has not been rectified by them.
The complainant further argued that he is an employee of Kotak Mahindra Group and to discharge his duties he has to call various persons. In absence of mobile phone hits to his income. That there is clear deficiency of service coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party by selling the defective Samsung mobile phone to the complainant. On several times the complainant visited the opposite party No.1 & 2 for refund of the price or to replace the mobile phone but they did not care at the request of the complainant. Complainant filed photocopy of letter dated 07.02.2017 to opposite party no.1. he also filed appeal for justice before the Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 10, Lee Road , Kolkata-700020, dated 28.10.2016 & 26.9.2016.
The purchase of the mobile phone before the opposite party is not disputed but the impugned mobile set is not repaired by the opposite party within the period of warranty for which the opposite party is under liability to do the same. The opposite party avoided the recourse of repairing or replace the said mobile set by a new one tantamount to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. So the complaint petition succeeds on contest against the opposite party.
4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant abled to prove the deficiency of service of the opposite party in respect of repairing and/or replacing the defective set by a new one.
ORDER
Hence it is ordered that the complaint case being No.69/2017 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Party No.1&2 with litigation cost of Rs.6,000/-.
The Opposite Party No.1&2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.6590/- to this complainant which opposite party No.1 received from this complainant during the period of purchase. Opposite party No.1&2 are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for harassment and mental agony. All the payment are to be made within 45 days from the date of passing this Order.
At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party No.1&2 shall pay fine @Rs.50/- for each day's delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary Post for information & necessary action.
