DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE NO:  CC – 09 of   2018

 

 

Shri Jayanta Das,

S/O- Shri Sunil Chandra Das,

Milan Chakra Near TV Tower,

P.O. A.D. Nagar, Agartala, 

West Tripura- 799003. .....…...Complainant.

 

 

       -VERSUS-

 

 

1. S.B Electronics (Mobile Service),

524, H.G.B. Road, 

Near Madan Mohan Mandir,

Melarmath, Agartala- 799001,

Tripura (West).

 

 

2. Samsung Registered Office(Head Office) ,

Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd,

2nd -4th Floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square,

Sector- 43,  Golf Course Road,

Gurgaon- 122002, Haryana, India.

 

 

3. Choudhury Electronics,

79, H.G.B. Road (Melarmath), 

Agartala, Tripura(West). ........ Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

C o u n s e l

 

For the Complainant : In person.

 

For the O.P. No. 2 : Sri Amrit Lal Saha,

  Sri Kajal Nandi,

  Advocates.

  

For the O.P. 1 &  3 : None appeared.

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT   DELIVERED   ON:   05.07.2018.

 

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by one Jayanta Das U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that on 30.09.2016 he purchased one Samsung J7 Smart Phone from Chowdhury Electronics on payment of Rs.16,000/-.  The handset suddenly became black and over heated just after 2 days. So he went to the service centre  SB Electronics. But the S.B. Electronics  failed to solve the problems. Falsely they stated that problem was solved. Again and again he visited the service centre. But the service centre failed to repair it. Lastly on 18.08.17 he went to the service centre and deposited the set. After 20 to 25 days service centre stated that it has no problem. But petitioner could not use it and problem not solved by the service centre within the period of one year of warranty. Within the period of one year service centre was supposed to repair it or replace it. But no step was taken by the service centre. As the petitioner suffered due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice petitioner filed this case praying for compensation and replacement. 

 

2. Notice served but Service centre, S.B. Electronics did not appear.

 

3. On the other hand Seller, Chowdhury Electronics also did not appear.

 

4. Only Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.. O.P. No.2, Manufacturer appear denying the claim. It is stated that where there is no major manufacturing defect then company is not responsible or liable for payment of any amount to the complainant unless there is no manufacturing defect in the handset.

 

5. On the  basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination;

(I) Whether the service centre personal SB Electronics did not give proper service for repairing?

  (II) Whether petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

 

6. Petitioner examined one witness, Jayanta Das complainant himself.

 

7. O.P.  produced  statement on affidavit but produced no other evidence.

 

8. Complainant side produced the cash memo, also the service report of SB Electronics.

9. On the basis of evidences we shall now determine the above points.

Findings and decisions:

10. It is admitted and established fact that within the warranty period just after 2 days the mobile phone was not working. As per cash memo the set was purchased on 30.09.2016. In the service report of S.B Electronics it is found that 2 times it was repaired. Now again same problem arises. Some times suddenly display auto black. One Pritam Engineer was assigned the duty for  repair. But S.B Electronics engineer did not repair it. Petitioner suffered because of negligence of the O.P. S.B. Electronics. This is deficiency of service of S.B. Electronics. The mobile phone was not working properly from the date of purchase. So he went to the service centre and the service centre after few days returned the phone without repairing. Whether it is manufacturing defect or is not stated about by the O.P. S.B. Electronics. Whether there was inherent defect only service centre could say. Admittedly it was within the warranty period. So set is to be replaced or repaired. When repair was not possible it is to be replaced by a new one. O.P. No.2 Samsung India electronics failed to prove that the mobile phone have no manufacturing defect. The phone was not working since the date of purchase. So it is to be replaced.  We direct the O.P. No.2, Samsung to replace the mobile phone with a similar phone or another phone of same value Rs.16,000/- or refund the amount Rs.16,000/- to the petitioner. We also direct O.P. No.1, S.B. Electronics to pay Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner as compensation. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

11. In view of our above findings, we direct the O.P. No.2, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. to replace the mobile phone by a new one of same category or another of same cost if not possible to pay the price of the mobile phone Rs.16,000/-(Rupees Sixteen Thousand). We direct the SB Electronics, O.P. No.1 to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) to petitioner for its deficiency of service. Payment is to be made within 2(two) months, if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.

 

 

    Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA