THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, M.A., L.L.M., President,
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Monday the 30th day of March, 2015
C.C.No.74/2014
Between:
B.Sreenivasa Rao,
S/o B.Naga Swamy Rao,
Aged 53 Years, H.No.22/33, Upstairs
Sagumandi Street, Kurnool-518 001. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Proprietor,
S.P. Tronics, Shop No. G18 & 19,
TJ Shopping Mall, SBI Circle,
Kurnool-518 001.
2. The Manager,
Sai Gautham Services,
Shop No.109 & 110, Soma Arcade,
Opp. Kalkura Hotel, Raj Theatre Road,
Kurnool-518 001. …OPPOSITE PARTIES
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri.B.Jyothi Prakash, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member,)
C.C. No.74/2014
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying:-
- To directing the opposite parties to return to price of Cell phone Rs.5,050/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of purchase of Cell Phone to till the date of payment to the complaint.
(OR)
To replace it with another Cell Phone with similar model without any defect.
- To direct the opposite party No.2 to refund the illegally collected amount of Rs.500/- from the complainant.
- To grant a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony
- To grant the costs of the complaint;
- To grant any other relief as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of case.
2. The facts of the complainant in brief is as under:- The opposite party No.1 is the proprietor of S.P.Tronics, Kurnool and opposite party No.2 is the Authorized Service Centre of Samsung Company Cell Phones at Kurnool. The opposite parties advertised in the leading news papers in regard to Samsung Cell Phones. The complainant attracted with advertisement and purchased Model No.Primo 5610 Samsung Cell Phone by vide bill No.1312 dated 31.07.2013 for an amount of Rs.5,050/- from opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 provided a warranty period of one year from the date of purchase. The complainant made use of Cell Phone after few days, it failed to function, that the display problem arose in the Cell Phone within a warranty period. The complainant contacted opposite party No.1 to rectify the defect and as per opposite party No.1 instructions the Cell Phone was handed over to opposite party No.2 on 01.02.2014 and Job card No.1907 was issued by opposite party No.2 and demanded a sum of Rs.1,350/- for repairs, but the complainant paid Rs.500/- to opposite party No.2 and endorsed the same on job card. The opposite party No.2 neither repair it, nor return it to complainant. Though the complainant demanded for return of money, they did not respond. The opposite parties selling the defective Cell Phones and cheating the innocent consumers like complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties as the complainant heart patient and had been suffered mental agony due to the attitude of opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 filed written version and the same is adopted by opposite party No.1. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is submitted that the product of Samsung are of the highest quality and it will never sell any product which is defective including manufacturing defect and poor workmanship. The complainant purchased Cell Phone from opposite party No.1 on 31.07.2013 and the first complaint received by opposite party was on 01.02.2014. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2due to display problem in Cell Phone. The service centre endorsed that the mobile is water logged which renders the warranty void as per the terms and conditions of the guarantee/warranty card. As the complainant himself is responsible for water logging of the mobile. The opposite party No.2 has given estimation for Rs.1,350/- and the complainant also paid Rs.500/- towards initial amount. After rectified the defect, the opposite party informed the complainant to take back the mobile, but he did tune up till this date. There is no manufacturing defect or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked and sworn affidavit of complainant is filed. Sworn affidavit filed by opposite party No.2. No document is marked.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. Points i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant purchase Samsung Model No.5610 Primo Cell Phone from opposite party No.1 for an amount of Rs.5,050/- bill No.1312 dated 31.07.2013. The purchase bill in original is marked as Ex.A1. The opposite parties provided one year warranty for the said phone from the date of purchase in favour of the complainant. Warranty card is marked as Ex.A2. It is the case of complainant that after the purchase when the complainant made use of the said phone, within a warranty period the display problem arose in the Cell Phone. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and as per the instruction of opposite party No.1, the Cell Phone handed over to opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 issued Job Card No.1907 and demand Rs.1,350/- for repairs and the complainant paid Rs.500/- towards the repairs charges. The Job Card is marked as Ex.A3 dated 01.02.2014 even though one month was completed the opposite party No.2 did not repaired it and returned the Cell Phone to the complainant. The complainant demanded return of the money to opposite parties, the opposite parties refused the same. The complainant is heart patient medical report is marked as Ex.A4. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that opposite parties had been selling the defective Cell Phones and cheating the innocent consumers like complainant. The complainant suffered lot of mental agony due to the attitude of opposite parties. It is a case of opposite party No.2 that opposite party maintain a very customer friendly service centre where every complaint is logged in systematically and electronic record is maintained. The complainant brought the handset water logged on 01.02.2014, he was informed that the set cannot be repaired under warranty as warranty becomes void in view of the water logging of the set. The opposite party No.2 has given estimation of Rs.1,350/- and the complainant paid Rs.500/- towards initial amount. After rectified the defect, the complainant did not take back it.
8. There is no dispute with regard to purchase of Samsung Cell Phone for Rs.5,050/- from opposite party No.1 on 31.07.2013 under Ex.A1. The opposite parties provided one year warranty in favour of the complainant under Ex.A2. Admittedly the display problem in the said Cell Phone was arose within a warranty period and Cell Phone was handed over to opposite party No.2 for repairs under Ex.A3. As per the warranty card Ex.A2, the opposite parties ought to have repairs, it in event of any repairs arises without collecting any charges towards the repairs, but opposite party No.2 collected the amount of Rs.500/- towards the repair charges as the Cell Phone is water logged and the warranty becomes void. But the opposite party No.2 did not mentioned in his Job Card Ex.A3 that the said Cell Phone is water logged though there is separate column in Job Card for mentioning the same and the condition of equipment, defects in the Cell Phone at the time of handover the Cell Phone to opposite party No.2 by the complainant for repairs. As per Ex.A3 it is very clear that the Cell Phone is not water logged, it suffers from any manufacturing defect, which was not rectified by opposite parties within a warranty period. We persued all the material available on record we hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and caused mental agony to the complainant.
9. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to return the price amount of Cell Phone Rs.5,050/- with interest at 9% from the date of purchase to till the date of payment or to replace it with another new Cell Phone with similar model without any defect and further direct to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs of the case. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 30th day of March, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite parties:- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Purchase Bill dated 31.07.2013.
Ex.A2 Customer details cum Warranty Card.
EX.A3 Servicing Center Job card of the opposite party No.2 dated 01.02.2014.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Hospital Discharge Summary of the Complainant dated 31.03.2008
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
