FINAL ORDER
Smt. Syeda Shahnur Ali, President-in-Charge
The present case has been filed by the complainant praying for an order directing the OP to supply new mobile set to the complainant or to return the purchase price with 10% interest from the date of purchase till realization and to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation and Rs.10000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
The complainant’s case, in a nutshell, is that the complainant purchased a mobile set of Samsung G 350 model from the OP on paying Rs.6490/- on 18.08.2014 for personal use. Few problems were detected in the said mobile set on 01.09.2014. According to the complainant, the OP deposited the said defective mobile set to the service center of the mobile company but the service center returned the mobile set on 03.11.2014 without making any service as the set was tampered and parts were missed for blust. The complainant requested the OP to change the said defective set but the OP refused to do it. Hence, the instant case has been filed by the complainant.
The OP has appeared in the present case and filed his W/V as well as WNA wherein the OP has stated that he is only a shop-keeper who sells various type of mobile sets. The OP has admitted that the complainant had purchased the said mobile set from his showroom but the complainant did not inform the OP about the problem of the mobile set. According to the OP, as the service centre of the mobile company has already refused to do the service of the said mobile set and the complainant personally communicated with the said mobile service centre, so, the OP cannot be made liable for the said mobile set.
According to the OP, the complainant tampered the mobile set and was liable for the damage of the same and as per terms and conditions of the Warranty Card of the mobile company, the claim of the complainant in respect of the mobile set service has been restricted.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, documents including WNA submitted by them carefully.
Points for consideration
- Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the OP?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation/relief?
With an eye to the above two points, the discussions are mentioned below.
Decision with reason
Point nos. 1 and 2
Having perused the facts and documents of the present case, it appears that the complainant purchased a Samsung mobile set of model no. G350 of Rs.6490/- from the OP on 18.08.2014. we donot find any document which can prove that the complainant deposited/offered the said defective mobile set to the OP for repairing/servicing. It is true that the Samsung Mobile Service Centre received the defective mobile set of the complainant and returned the same one without making any service. The service centre did not make the service as the mobile set was tampered and parts of the set were missed for blust. The said mobile service centre has mentioned the details of service in the service centre’s copy dtd. 03.11.2014 submitted by the said service centre to the defective mobile set depositer, i.e. the complainant herein.
In the ‘Customer details and Warranty Card’ specially in the Warranty condition section, we see in the serial no. 7 “In case of any damage/misuse detected by the Authorised Personnel, the Warranty conditions are not applicable and repairs will be done subject to availability of parts and on a chargable basis only.” With an eye to the said clause and the remarks made by the Samsung Mobile Service Centre, it is clear that the complainant can not get the repairing facility or mobile service free from the said service centre.
Having discussed the above subject and considered the existence of Samsung Mobile Service Centre and its job, we feel complainant should have made the authorized service centre a party to this case, more so, the complainant could not prove any negligence or deficiency in service in respect of the present OP, that being so, the complainant in our considered view is not entitled to get any mobile set as well as amount of the said mobile set as well as any compensation and other claim from the OP. It is to be mentioned that the duty of the OP is to sell fresh and original company’s product not to provide service related to defect of any mobile as the company’s authorized service centre exists in complainant’s jurisdiction. Having considered the entire fact, we feel, the complainant is not entitled to get any claim, compensation and others as he has mentioned in his complaint. That being so, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Both these points are thus, disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is,
that the instant case being no. CC 90/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP. Parties do bear their own costs.
Member President-in-Charge
