Date of Complaint : 16.02.2010
Date of Order :12.01.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT : THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER – I
DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.No. 196 / 2010
THIS TUESDAY 11th DAY OF JANUARY 2016
P. Srinivasan,
C384, IInd Street,
Periyar Nagar,
Chennai 600 082. .. Complainant.
- Vs-
1. The Proprietor, M/s. Global Mobile, New No.138, Old No.35/36, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. 2. The Manager, M/s. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., No.85/1, Dr.Radha Krishna Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 4. .. Opposite parties. | | .. Opposite party. |
| | |
For the complainant : M/s. J. Ranjani Devi & another
For the opposite parties : Exparte
ORDER
THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA, :: MEMBER-I
1. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5150/- towards cost of the mobile and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and other charges and also to replace with new mobile to the complainant.
2. Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite parties did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version. Hence the opposite parties were set exparte on 11.8.2011 and 24.12.2014.
3. Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant counsel.
4. The complainant contented that he bought a Samsung Mobile on 1.6.2009 with one year warranty from the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.5,150/-. Mobile got hanging and switching automatically while in use from the 2nd day of the purchase. The purpose of purchasing the mobile was to communicate his wife for emergency sake as she is Gynechology patient. The mobile was kept with his wife. Since the mobile got hanging he rushed to the service centre at Anna Nagar he could not give the said mobile for service since they were busy. Hence on 12.10.2009 he went to the said service centre and given the defected mobile. After two day they informed that there is some software problem in the said mobile. On 15.10.2009 when he went to the service centre they informed that the problem was not rectified. Hence the complainant got his mobile back. On 19.10.2009 he gave the mobile to Digital waves at C.I.T Colony Mylapore, Chennai-4 who is the authorized Samsung Service Centre on the advice of Samsung staff Mr.Gopi Branch Service Manager. But the problem in the mobile was not rectified. As such he was unable to contact his wife and suffered physical pain and mental agony. The complainant sent several emails for Branch Manager for replacement of new mobile but no action taken. His mobile is still with digital waves. Hence the complainant filed the above complaint to pay a sum of Rs.5,150/- being the cost of the mobile along with compensation and other charges and also to replace with new mobile.
5. It is evidenced through Ex.A1 that the complainant had purchased the complaint mentioned Samsung Mobile from the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.5,150/- on 1.6.2009.
6. The complainant contended that within two days of purchase the mobile got hanging and switching off automatically and when he handed over the mobile to the service center they informed that there is software problem. Since they did not rectified the problem the complainant took mobile from them and since the problem continued he gave the mobile on 19.10.2009 to the Digital Waves, C.I.T. Colony, Mylapore Chennai-4, who is authorized Samsung Service Centre, on the advice of Samsung staff Mr.Gopi, Branch Service Manager. The same is evidenced through Ex.A3 job sheet given by the opposite party. On 22.10.2009 the complainant went to the Digital Waves Service Centre to get back the mobile but he came to know that the problem was not rectified. Hence he sought for replacement of the new mobile. But they failed to heed to his request. Hence he sent a notice i.e. Ex.A4 to the 2nd opposite party seeking replacement of a new mobile. The 2nd opposite party inspite of receiving the notice i.e.Ex.A5 failed to send any reply nor replaced with new mobile.
7. From the above facts and circumstances and documents produced on record it is clear that inspite of job sheet given by the Digital Waves to whom the mobile was given for repair at the direction of the 2nd opposite party staff the mobile was not serviced and not even returned to the complainant till today. Inspite of repeated request and notice sent by the complainant the opposite party failed to replace with a new mobile As such it proves that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service.
8. Moreover Ex.A1 also reveals that the mobile is under warranty when it was given for service. Hence the contention of the complainant that the brand new mobile was defective within a very short period and due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties he could not communicate his wife during emergency and as such he suffered physical pain and mental agony is acceptable.
9. Whereas the opposite party has not appeared before this forum to give any contra evidence in order to defend their case. Hence he was set exparte.
10. But the claim of the complainant for refund of cost of mobile as well as replacement of new mobile is not sustainable. Hence we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.5,150/- as cost of the mobile along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 16.2.2010 to till the date of payment along with compensation. Whereas the compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant and he is entitled only for a reasonable compensation and as such the opposite parties are also jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as just and reasonable compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.5,150/- (Rupees Five thousand one hundred and fifty only) as cost of the mobile along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 16.2.2010 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above amount of (Rs.10,000/) shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order passed till the date of realization.
Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 12th day of January 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s Side documents :
Ex.A1- 1.6.2009 - Copy of purchase bill.
Ex.A2- - - Copy of enquiry sheet with reference.
Ex.A3- 19.10.2009 - Copy of Samsung work order sheet.
Ex.A4- 9.11.2009 - Copy of letter to opposite party.
Ex.A5- - Copy of Acknowledgement card with postal receipt.
Ex.A6- - - -do-
Opposite parties’ side documents: - .. Nil .. (exparte)
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
