Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/166/2014

Kona Kalyani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

T. Satya Rao

28 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:02-06-2014 

                                                                                                Date of Order:28-02-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao, M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                         Saturday, the 28^th day of February, 2015.

                               CONSUMER CASE No.166/2014

Between:-

Kona Kalyani, D/o K. Ravi Babu, Hindu,

aged 25 years, residing at Door No.45-30-3,

Jagannadhapuram, Akkayyapalem,

Visakhapatnam-500 008.

                                                                                        ….. Complainant

And:-

1.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

   represented by its Managing Director, B-1,

   Sector 81, Phase-2, Noida District,

   Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.      

2.Cell Point, represented by its Proprietor,

   Shop situated at D. No. 58-1-397, Dadi Complex,

   NAD Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam-530 009.

                                                                                    …  Opposite Parties

                     

This case coming on 10.02.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri T.S. Rao, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri B.V. Appa Rao, Advocate for the 2^nd Opposite Party and the 1^st Opposite Party being exparte and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

        (As per Sri. C.V. Rao, Honourable Male Member, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The Complainant asks the Forum to pass an  award in her favour and against the Opposite Parties:  a) Directing the Opposite Parties to rectify the defect in the mobile of the Complainant or replace the mobile with a new one; b) Directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by the Complainant due to deficiency of services; c) Directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of this Complaint; d) For such other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

 

2.     The 1^st Opposite Party did not resist the claim of the Complainant as it was set exparte and remained exparte.

          Though the 2^nd Opposite Party got Vakalat filed on its behalf, it did not file any counter and as such, it did not resist the claim of the Complainant

           

3.       The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the Complaint, is that the 1^st Opposite Party is manufacturing company of mobiles and other electronic items like laptops, other computer accessories.   The 2^nd Opposite Party is the authorized dealer of the 1^st Opposite Party and both the Opposite Parties made vast publicity both in electronic and paper media that their mobiles are famous and they would provide better mobiles at cheaper rate.   The Complainant stated that she being a post graduate intended to purchase mobile and lured by the advertisements made by the 1^st Opposite Party approached the 2^nd Opposite Party and requested him to show perfect mobile, the 2^nd Opposite Party suggested Samsung S-5830 stating that it is working properly with all facilities.   Believing the words, she purchased the same by paying Rs.9,300/- to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 30.05.2013.    While preparing bill, the 2^nd Opposite Party mentioned the Complainant’s name as A. Kalyani by mistake instead of mentioning K. Kalyani, the 2^nd Opposite Party had also represented that there is 12 months warranty for the said mobile.   The Complainant stated that she used the said mobile with Airtel Sim vide No.9963758784 but the said mobile started troubling since 20^th August, 2013.   The mobile was giving troubles did not hearing properly, mike problem, blank screen for some times and if the Complainant used net in the cell phone, it is getting trouble.     The Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party three times and every time the 2^nd Opposite Party used to rectify the problem temporarily and give back to the Complainant; frequently, software problem is also coming to the said mobile.   The Complainant stated that the she requested the 2^nd Opposite Party to rectify the problems occurred in the mobile permanently or else to exchange the said problematic mobile with a new one.    But the 2^nd Opposite Party was not responding properly.   The Complainant also tried to contact the 1^st Opposite Party, who is the manufacturer of the said mobile, but no use as there was no proper response from their end.    Due to non-working of mobile from the beginning of its purchase the Complainant is suffering a lot  mentally,  physically and monetarily, even though she spent huge amount for purchasing the same.    Due to deficiency of services on the part of the 1^st and  Opposite Parties in not giving proper mobile, she suffered a lot, as such both the Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation amount of Rs.40,000/- besides exchange of problematic mobile with new one.   Hence, this Complaint.

 

4.       The Complainant filed an evidence affidavit and also written arguments to support her claim.      Exs.A1 to A5 are marked for the Complainant.

 

5.       The matter has been heard on behalf of the Complainant.

 

6.       After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the mobile in question was purchased on 30.05.2013.   It’s general warranty was for one year up to 29.05.2014.   There was nothing on record to show that there was any complaint by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties up to 9.5.2014 on which date, the Complainant got issued a lawyer’s notice i.e., Ex.A3 to the effect that the mobile in question was not working properly.   Then on 30.05.2014 (as per Ex.A5), the 1^st Opposite Party asked the Complainant to visit their service center and submit her handset, so that they could repair it, up to her satisfaction on free of cost as she has reported issue under warranty period.   This was so because the lawyer’s notice was issued within warranty period.   But very peculiarly the Complainant did not prefer to submit her handset to the service center for repair.   As such, to date it is not established that the said mobile was suffering from any defect at all at any time after its purchase.   So, for all practical purposes, the claim, that the cell phone purchased by the Complainant on 30.5.2013 was defective, stands unsubstantiated.   As such, this Complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

 

 

 

 

7.       In the result, this Complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 28^ths day of February, 2015.

   Sd/-                                       Sd/-                                      Sd/-

President                          Lady Member                           Male Member

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	30.05.2013	Cash Bill No.2462 an amount of Rs.9,300/- issued by the 2nd OP in favour of the Complainant	Original
Ex.A02		Warranty Book issued by Ops	Original
EX.A03	09.05.2014	Regd. Lawyer’s Notice issued by the Complainant’s counsel to OPs	Office copy
Ex.A04	12.05.2014	2 Postal Receipts	Original
Ex.A05	30.05.2014	Letter issued by the 2nd OP to Complainant	Original

For the Opposite Parties:-               

                                                -Nil-

   Sd/-                                       Sd/-                                           Sd/-

President                            Lady Member                             Male Member