BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No.27 of 2016
Smti. Jayashree Paul,
Link Road, Lane No.3, H/No.12, P.O & P.S- Silchar-6……………………. Complainant.
-V/S-
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Managing Director.
A25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, New Delhi. O.P No.1.
2. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Managing Director,
Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3rd Block,
Koramangla Industrial Layout, Bangalore-560034, Karnataka O.P.No.2.
3. The Manager, Service Centre, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Rangirkhari, Opp.Tarakeshwar Mandir, P.S & P.O Rangirkhari, Silchar-5. O.P.No.3
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Sri Rahul Nath, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. A.K.Azad Laskar, Advocate for the O.P. No.1.
Sri Sukumar Sinha, Advocate for the O.P.No.2
None for O.P.No.3
Date of Evidence……………………….. 17-06-2017, 19-07-2017
Date of written argument……………… 06-12-2017, 30-12-2017, 19-03-2018
Date of oral argument…………………. 13-06-2018
Date of judgment………………………. 04-07-2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath,
- This Complaint brought under the Provision of the Consumer Protection Act.1986 against Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and its Service Centre at Silchar and also against Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. for award of replacement of damaged mobile handset VS70330 with brand new similar handset of absolutely fine quality and compensation.
- The Complainant, Miss Jayashree Paul stated inter alia in the Complaint that she purchased the aforesaid handset on 04/04/2016 online through Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. After receiving the said Product she could noticed that neither phone call receive nor make. Accordingly, she rushed to Samsung Service Centre. The O.P No.3 the Service Centre. Repaired the handset and she received back the repaired handset on 8/08/2016 but from 09.08.2016 the said handset stopped functioning again. Hence, she served a legal notice on 20/08/2016 to O.Ps. On received of the Notice the O.P.No.1 through telephone assured her for prompt and suitable relief but in vain. That is why, the instant case brought on 21/12/2016.
- The O.P.No.1 (Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.) in its W/S stated inter alia that the mobile set had been damaged due to mishandling by the Complainant for which it was repaired by Service Centre and repaired handset was handed over to the Complainant and the relief sought by the Complainant for replacement of the mobile handset cannot be done because there was no manufacturing defect in it. Of course the O.P.No.1, further stated that the Company is always ready to repair the defective handset as per terms and condition of the warrantee. The O.P. No.2 in its W/S stated inter alia that the Complainant impleaded the O.P.No.2 without any relief against it and more over the O.P.No.2 did not cause any disservice or deficiency of service. Rather the role of O.P.No.2 is intermediary between buyer and seller. Anyhow, the O.P. No.3 the Service Centre did not contest the case.
- During hearing the Complainant submitted her deposition and deposition of 2 (two) witness, name of those witnesses are Madhab Das and Rati Das respectively. The Complainant also exhibited invoice of purchasing the hand set vide Ext.1 and other documents including material ext.1 of damaged handset. The O.P.No.1 also submitted deposition of Mr. Anindya Bose and O.P.No.2 submitted deposition of Mr. Amarnath Ghosh. After closing evidence, the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant and the Ld. Advocate of the O.P.No.1 submitted written argument.
- I have heard oral argument of the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant and Ld. Advocate of the O.P.No.1 & 2. I have perused evidence on record and written argument. In this case it is admitted fact that the Complainant purchased online the material Ext.1 handset for Rs.8,190/- on 05/04/2016 vide Ext.1. It is also admitted fact that the handset was repaired by O.P.No.3 and handed over the repaired handset to her on 08/08/2016. But the allegation of the Complainant is that since 09/08/2016 the said repaired handset stopped functioning again.
- The Contesting O.P. did not challenge the said allegation rather took defense plea that the set has been malfunctioning due to mishandling for which the set cannot be replaced but ready to repair. But if we go through the order sheet dated 20-06-2017, 19-07-2017 it is revealed that the O.P No.3 refused to keep the alleged damaged hand set in its zimma to protect the same from further damage. Hence, at this stage when it is established in view of oral evidence as well as documentary evidence by the complainant that hand set is not functioning, so it is the duty of the O.P No.1 to take back the hand set either for repairing the same or to replace the same with new one. Of course at this stage it is not in a position to determine on the basis of evidence on record as whether there is any manufacturing defect in the hand set.
- Thus, the O.P No.1 is asked to direct the O.P No.3 to take back the material Ext-1 hand set immediately from the custody of this District Forum and the O.P No.1 is further directed to replace the hand set with a brand new similar one it is not possible to repair to restore full and proper functioning of the handset. Not only that, the O.P No.1 is further directed to pay cost of the proceeding of Rs.2,000/- and compensation for mental agony of Rs.3,000/-.
- With the above relief the OP No.1 is directed to satisfy the award within 45 days from today. In default, interest @ 10% P. A. will be added to the award and on such situation value of the mobile set will be taken into consideration as Rs.8,190/- to calculate the interest
- Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 4th day of July, 2018.
