BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 262/2011 Filed on 12.08.2011

Dated : 15.12.2012

Complainant :

Sudha Vasanth, W/o Lt. Col. Vasanthkumar, T.C 3/1510-2, Mani Mandiram, Lakshmi Nagar B-8/3, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram- 695 004.

(By adv. M. Nizamudeen)

Opposite parties :

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 7^th & 8^th Floor, ISCI Tower, 61, Nehru Palace, New Delhi-110 019.

    

2. Mobility, N.N. Towers, T.C No. 3/2774(2), Opposite IOC Petrol Pump, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-4.

    

3. The Manager, M/s Mastrofone, Samsung Services, Showroom & Service Centre, Opp: Chellom Pump (HP Petrol Pump), C.R. Complex, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

This O.P having been heard on 29.11.2012, the Forum on 15.12.2012 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant with her husband purchased a Samsung Mobile handset model No. SGH-L700 on 27.05.2009 from the 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party is the authorized dealer of the 1^st opposite party. At the time when the handset was purchased, the complainant's husband LT. Col. Vasanthkumar was present with her. The 3^rd opposite party is the service provider of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. The complainant purchased the aforesaid set from the 2^nd opposite party by paying a price of Rs. 6,750/-. After 3 months of its purchase, the display of the aforesaid mobile handset started malfunctioning. Immediately the complainant along with her husband took the aforesaid set to the 2^nd opposite party on 13.09.2009 who directed them to the service providers, the 3^rd opposite party. The 3^rd opposite party repaired the same and returned the set to the complainant informing that the said set is free from any defect whatsoever. Believing the said assurance given by the 3^rd opposite party the complainant and her husband returned with the handset. But to the utter surprise of the complainant after another 3 months, the same defect of the set recurred once more. The complainant was constrained to take the said handset to the 3^rd opposite party again. The 3^rd opposite party charged Rs. 400/- for repairing the set which was paid to the 3^rd opposite party by the complainant and the 3^rd opposite party assured the complainant that the defect would not recur again. But after a month the same defect in display occurred again and complainant took the set again to the 3^rd opposite party on 14.12.2009. Complainant was shocked to hear from the 3^rd opposite party that the said set was beyond repairs. The handset is out of order and is not working at all. The said handset is not working due to its manufacturing defect. As per warranty terms and conditions of the opposite parties, there is warranty for the set for 1 year from the date of its purchase. As the handset became defective within 1 year of its purchase, the opposite parties are liable to replace the aforesaid with a new handset or pay its price of Rs. 6,750/-. The complainant was put to severe mental agony, financial loss and hardships due to the supply of defective mobile handset by the opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the same. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties on the same count. The complainant issued legal notice dated 07.04.2011 revealing the aforesaid facts to the opposite parties and demanding replacement of the set and compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. Hence this complaint.

The opposite parties in this case remained ex-parte.

Complainant has filed proof affidavit and from her side 7 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P7.

Points to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?

2. Reliefs and costs.

Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant has purchased a Samsung mobile handset model No. SGH L700 on 27.05.2009 from the 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party is the authorized dealer of 1^st opposite party. 3^rd opposite party is the authorized service centre of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. The price of the handset is Rs. 6,750/-. Ext. P1 is the invoice dated 27.05.2009. As per warranty terms and conditions of the opposite parties there is warranty for the set for one year from the date of its purchase. Ext. P5 is the warranty card. Ext. P5 proves that contention of the complainant. Complainant alleges that after 3 months of its purchase the mobile set started malfunctioning. On 13.09.2009 the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party for repairing the defects. Through Ext. P2 document the 3^rd opposite party admitted that on 13.09.2009 they repaired the phone for the first time. But the same complaint occurred after 3 months. The 3^rd opposite party again repaired the phone and charged Rs. 400/- as service charge. But thereafter within one month the same defect occurred and then the 3^rd opposite party stated that the defect was beyond repairs. The handset is out of order and is not working. The complainant states that the defect is manufacturing defect and the opposite parties are liable to replace the aforesaid handset with a new one or pay its price of Rs. 6,750/-. As per Ext. P2 letter issued by 3^rd opposite party, the defect is water damage, hence the complainant has no right to claim the warranty benefits. The complainant alleges that it was a manufacturing defect and the defect occurred within the warranty period and he is eligible to get the warranty benefits. In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit and has produced 7 documents to prove her contentions. The opposite parties never appeared to contest this case. Hence the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. Hence there is no need to follow the procedure under Sec. 13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act. In these circumstances and on the light of evidence we find that the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for.

In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5,000/-( Rs. 1,750/- deducted from the price i.e; Rs. 6,750/- as depreciation of 7 months' use) along with a compensation and costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Otherwise 12% annual interest shall be paid on the above said amounts till the date of realization. After the compliance of the order the opposite parties shall have the right to receive the phone from the complainant.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of December 2012.

Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 262/2011

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Bill/invoice dated 27.05.2009 for Rs. 6,750/- issued by 2^nd

opposite party

P2 - Letter dated 14.12.2009 issued by 3^rd opposite party

P3 - Copy of legal notice dated 07.04.2010

P4 - Reply notice dated 25.05.2010

P5 - Copy of e-mail dated 18.12.2009

P6 - Acknowledgement card

P7 - Postal receipts

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb