Orissa

Rayagada

CC/38/2016

Arun Kumar Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.K Cell Point - Opp.Party(s)

Self

17 Oct 2016

ORDER

          DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

 

                                                      C.C. Case  No.38/ 2016.

                                                                       

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc.                                    Member

            Sri Arun Kuimar Mohanty, R.K.Nagar, Near G.B.M High School, Po/Dist. Rayagada.            765001.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ………Complainant

Versus

1. R.K.Cell Point, New Bus Stand, Rayagada.
2. Care Manager, Samsung India  Ltd., New Delhi.
3. Manager, Samsung India   Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar.

 

                                                                                                             ……...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.Ps: Sri K.Ch.Mohapatra & Associate Advocate, Rayagada.

 

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one  Samsung mobile   from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.7,850/- on 09.04.2015 vide Cash Memo No.581   but  after  its  purchase the mobile set  was found defective and it could not be used properly for which  the complainant approached the service centre  but  the service centre  failed to remove the above defects   and hence finding no other option  the complainant  approach this forum and prayed to direct the O.ps  to replace the mobile set  or refund the cost of  Rs.7,850/- . and  award compensation for mental agony  and such other relief as the forum deem fit and proper . Hence, this complaint.

                         On being noticed, the O.ps appeared  through their advocate and filed written version inter  alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. It is submitted by the O.Ps that  the case is not maintainable  and liable to be dismissed.  There is no cause of action to file this case against the O.ps.  The real fact is that the complainant has purchased the mobile set  on 09.04.15 from the OP 1 for a consideration amount of Rs.7,850/- and used the said set till 03.11.2015.  On 13.06.15 Service Center, Rayagada  received the said set for repair and repaired the same  set and upgraded the software of his mobile and handed over to the complainant  the said repair mobile on the same day in  OK condition and  again on 17.11.15 the complainant has cunningly in oblique motive further claimed before the  service centre ,Rayagada to rectify the defect like “ some time option and back keys ;not working”  and after received the handset of the complainant the Service centre, Rayagada issued the job sheet  to him  and the service engineer verified the said mobile phone and observed that there was no  defect in the  keys  and  in the mobile phone also. So the Service Centre, Rayagada returned the handset to the complainant and taken back the job sheet from the complainant without any repair and also cancelled the service request vide No.9865 dt.17.11.15.  The complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint by suppressed the real facts only to tarnish reparation of the OP 2 and to harass the Ops and to give tension to the Ops ;and to secure the illegal and unlawful gain from the O.P 2. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.      

 

                                                                       FINDINGS

                        Heard and perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and we accept the grievance of the complainant. The Complainant  argued that the O.ps have sold a defective  mobile set  to the complainant and claimed that the O.ps caused deficiency in service and deprived of the complainant of enjoyment of the mobile set  since the date of  its purchase  which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

Now we have to see whether there was any negligence of the Ops  in providing  after sale service  to the complainant as alleged ?

 

We perused the documents filed by the complainant.  Since the mobile set found defective after its purchase    and   the complainant  informed the Ops regarding the defect but the  Ops   failed to remove  the defect . At this stage we hold that  if the mobile set  require  servicing since  the date of its purchase, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if the defective mobile set  is sold to the complainant , the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new  one or  remove the defects  and also the   complainant is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss.  In the instant case  as it is appears that the mobile set  which was purchased by the complainant had developed  defects and the O.ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period. It appears that the complainant invested  a substantial amount and purchased the mobile set  with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the article. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of using the mobile set  for such  and the defecates were not removed by the O.ps who  know the defects from time to time from the complainant.

Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet  his mental agony, financial loss. Hence,  it is ordered.

 

                                                ORDER

                        The  opposite parties  are directed to repair  the mobile set   and extend the warranty for another six months  and pay cost of Rs.500/- . Further, we direct the Ops to pay the aforesaid award amount  within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay  interest  @  12%  p.a. on the above awarded amount till  the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 21^st   day October,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

            Member                                                                                               President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Xerox copy of  Cash Memo.
2. Xerox copy of acknowledgement of service request.

By the Opp.Party: Nil

 

                                                                                                           President