IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2014.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
CC.No.03/2014 (Filed on 01.01.2014)
Between:
D. Ashokan,
Panchajanyam,
Kalanjoor, 689694. ….. Complainant
And:
1. Samsung India Electronics-
Private Ltd.,
A-25, Ground Floor,
Four Tower Mohan Estate,
New Delhi. 110044.
2. S M G Electonics,
Kulathoor Building,
Mele Vettippuram,
Pathanamthitta. ….. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
The complainant approached this forum for getting a relief against the Opposite Parties.
2. Brief facts of the complainant is as follows. That he had purchased a GTC 3530 HSUINS mobile phone on 26.08.2012 manufactured by the 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party. The said phone having one year warranty. While so on 25.05.2013, his phone become defective. So it was given to the 2nd opposite party for repair. 2nd opposite party repaired the phone and returned it to the complainant. Thereafter also it become defective on several occasions. On all occasions the phone was given to 2nd opposite party. On all occasions they kept the phone with them for many days and will return it by saying that the defects are cured. Because of the inordinate delay in returning the phone by the 2nd opposite party, its warranty period is also expired. However they again received the phone on 02/09/2013 for repairs and they returned it on only on 14/11/2013, on repeated requests of the complainant by saying that necessary repairs were done. But after 2 days, the same complaints occurred again. The complaints are repeated only because of its manufacturing defect and he had used the phone only for few days due to its complaints. The mobile phone purchased by the complainant has patent manufacturing defect. The sale of a defective mobile phone by the 1st opposite party and delay in returning the phone by the 2nd opposite party and the improper repair of the complaints of the phone by the opposite parties is an unfair trade practice and is a deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for an order either for replacing the complainant’s mobile phone or for the realization of R. 4989/-, the price of the phone along with compensation and cost of Rs. 6500/- from the opposite parties.
3. In this case OP’s are exparte.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the complainant, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complainant consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Ext. A1. After closure of evidence the complainant was heard.
6. The Points:- Complainant’s allegation is that his mobile phone manufactured by the 1st opposite party purchased from an authorized shop of the 1st opposite party at Kottarakkara become defective several time within its warranty period. On all occasions he had entrusted the phone to the 2nd OP who is the authorized service centre of the 1st OP. But they kept the phone for several days with them and returned by saying that the defects were cured. But so far they have not rectified the actual defects. Because of the delay in returning the phone its warranty is expired and he had used the phone only for a short period since from its purchase and the 2nd OP has not rectified the actual complaint so far and now they are not prepared to resolve the grievance of the complainant. The above said act of the OP, selling of a defective phone, non redressal of the complainant’s grievance are clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and OP’s are liable to the complainant for the same.
7. In order to prove the case of the complaint, he had adduced oral evidence as PW1 and one document produced by him is marked as Ext. A1. Ext.A1 is the service request dated 02/09/2013 issued by the 2nd OP in the name of the complainant for receiving the complainant’s mobile phone for repair.
8. On the basis of the available materials on record and since the OP’s are exparte we find no reason to disbelieve the allegations of the complainant . Therefore the complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged. The non redressal of the complainant’s grievance by the OP’s is a clear deficiency in service and is an unfair trade practice and hence OP’s are liable to the complaint for the same. Therefore this complaint is allowable.
9. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby OP’s are directed to return Rs.4989/-, (Rupees Four thousand nine hundred and eighty nine only) the price of the phone along with compensation of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) and cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount with 10% from today till the realization of the whole amount jointly from the OP’s.
10. However the complainant is directed to return the mobile phone in question to opposite parties on getting the amount ordered here in above.
11. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of February, 2014.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Asokan. D.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of service request dated 02.09.2013 issued by the second opposite party in
the name of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant : Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) D. Ashokan, Panchajanyam, Kalanjoor, 689694. (2) Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor,
Four Tower Mohan Estate, New Delhi. 110044.
(3) S M G Electonics, Kulathoor Building, Mele Vettippuram,
Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Stock File.
