Mr. Nayanananda Dash, Male-Member : - Unfair trade practice in respect of sailing defective Mobile Hand-set (phone) and not replacing the same within the warranty period are the allegation arrayed against the Opp. Parties by the Complainant.
2. Complaint on brief reveals that, Complainant purchased one Mobile handset bearing Model No.19192 on dated. 03.06.2014 from Tarani Mobile, Kendrapara (Opp.Party No.1) manufactured by Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. (Opp.Party No.2) on payment of Rs.19,000/-(Rupees nineteen thousand)only and obtained money receipt No. 2567. After two months of purchase of the Mobile Hand-Set (Phone), it started showing defects in functioning of battery, automatically hanging/ hanged and stopped functioning. When, complainant approached O.P.No.1 retailer putting (place forth) the grievances of the defective Mobile Set(phone) the set was repaired by OP No.1. After one month of its repair again the same problem started with the Mobile Hand-set and the matter was intimated to the Opp. Parties. But Opp.Parties remain a deaf ear to the same. Finally on May-2015 the Complainant approached the O.P.No.1 to replace the defective Mobile Hand-set or to returned the price received, but O.P.No.1 refused to comply, for which Complainant issued an Advocate’s notice to O.P.No.1 on dated 14.5.2015. The same also unnoticed. The acts of the Opp. Parties gave serious mental agony and compelled the Complainant to take shelter of this Forum with prayer that, a direction may be given to replace/returned the defective Mobile Hand-set and to pay Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only as compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation.
3. Notice was served to O.P.No.1 retailer Tarini Mobile, Kendrapara, who appeared and did not prefer to file any written version to justify their case. O.P.No.2on the later stage of the proceeding was impleaded as a party, who filed written version on 23.9.2016. Notice was issued to O.P.No.2 (Samsung India Pvt.Ltd.) on 23.05 2016. They made their appearance on 02.09.2016 and filed written version on dated.23.09.2016. Both the Opp. Parties were set-exparte by this Forum on dated 19.05.2016, after giving sufficient opportunity and lapse of time limit as prescribed on the C.P.Act for filing the written version.
4. Heard the ex-parte submission of the Ld.Counsel for the Complainant, perused the attested Xerox copy of money receipts, warranty Card and Advocate’s notice. It is clear that Complainant has purchased one Samsung Mobile Hand-set bearing No.19192 from O.P.No.1 retailer i.e. Tarini Mobile, Kendrapara on dated 03.06.2014 by paying an amount of Rs.19,000/-(Rupees nineteen thousand)only. As per the complaint petition and copy of the Advocate’s notice and in absence of any counter, we have to accept the version of the Complainant and accept the prayer of the complaint which is non-rebuttal in nature. In the allegations, we observe the Opp.Parties are jointly and severally liable for the allegations of unfair trade practice.
Accordingly, we direct the O.P.No.2 Samsung India Pvt.Ltd. to replace the defective Mobile Hand-set bearing Model No.19192 on the same price through O.P.No.1 on production of existing Mobile Hand-set by the Complainant. If the same model is not available with the O.P.No.2 company. The Opp.parties will refund the price of the Mobile Hand-set i.e. Rs.19,000/-(Rupees nineteen thousand)only to the Complainant along with 6% interest per annum calculating from dated. 03.062014 to till the date of realization. The Order is to be complied within one month from receipt of this order, failing which 9% interest will be charged per annum for the delayed period.
The complaint is allowed in part on ex-parte.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 28th day of October,2016.
