Date of filing:- 19/03/2013
Date of Order:- 13/05/2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Dispute Case No. 03 of 2014.
Bijaya Kumar Meher, S/o Late Guru Charan Meher, aged about 45(forty five) years, Occupation- Business, R/o Ward No.4, Odiapada, Bargali, Po. Ps. Barpali, Dist. Bargarh ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd., 2nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurgan, Hariyana-122002.
Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Epari Plaza, C-653, Janapath, Kharval Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 (Odisha).
Anil Services (Auth. Samsung Service Centre), Ist Floor Suravi Hotel, Near Behera Nursing Home, N.H.6, Bargarh-768028(Odisha).
Garg Agency, Basudev Bhawan Complex, Balangir, Po/Ps/Dist. Balangir.
..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri M.K. Satpahty, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one) Sri R.Sahoo, Advocate with others Advocates.
and No. 2(two):- (Ex-parte)
For the Opposite Party No.3(three)
and No.4(four):- Ex-parte.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt.13/05/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
President by Miss R. Pattnayak, President.
The Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 against the Opposite Parties (In short the Opposite Parties) alleging deficiency in service.
In brief, the case of the Complainant is that on Dt.13/09/2013 he purchased a mobile handset model “Samsung” for his personal use bearing IMEI number 352266059868316 from the Opposite Party No.4(four) for Rs.20,500/-(Rupees twenty thousand five hundred)only with terms and conditions as stipulated in the warranty card issued at the time of purchase.
The Opposite Parties No.1(one) is the importer and product controller of Samsung brand mobile sets. The Opposite Party No.2(two) is the person to look after the consumer complaint and provide consumer service to satisfy the consumer of the products and also he is the authority and person concern to look after the regional affairs relating to the product and to manage to sort out problems of consumer of the product. The Opposite Party No.3(three) is the person who used to provide after sale service to the consumer being the local authorized service provider by the company. The Opposite Party No.4(four) is the authorized retail seller of Samsung brand mobiles.
Accordingly to the Complainant, after using the product for same days, he found that the set is hanging from time to time and is not functioning properly. The Complainant has agitated his grievance before the Opposite Party No.4(four) who took the set from the Complainant and sent the same for service and after repair return the set to the complainant . On using the same, the Complainant could found that the same problem is arising in the set, for which he has agitated his grievance before the Opposite Party No.3(three) to solve the problem. The Opposite Party No.3(three) without providing the requisite service to him deferred the matter on different pretext keeping the set in his custody without curing the fault. The Complainant has also agitated the grievance to Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) over telephone but in vain. The Complainant further pleaded that since the date of purchase, the set is not functioning properly. Despite his request to Opposite Party No.3(three) to provide him with a stand by set as an alternative arrangement and to seek permission from the Opposite Party No.1(one) to solve his problem the Opposite Party No.3(three) pay no heed. Finding no other way, the Complainant had cause service of pleader notice on the Opposite Parties on Dt.18/01/2014 which were duly received by the Opposite Parties but they did not give any reply. This act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service. The Opposite Parties are violating the terms and conditions of the warranty, issued by the company. On the other hand, the Complainant suffered loss, mental agony and physical harassment without getting any benefit or utility by the illegal act of the Opposite Parties. Alleging deficiency in service on the part Opposite Parties, the Complainant prayed for directions to Opposite Parties to refund a sum of Rs. 20,500/-(Rupees twenty thousand five hundred)only towards the purchase value of the Mobile set and compensation of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards sufferings and litigation cost respectively.
The Complainant has filed certain documents to prove his case which are attached to be case record.
Notices were duly served on the Opposite Parties and the case was posted for appearance and version. The Opposite Parties No.1(one) and No.2(two) entered their appearance through learned counsels but subsequently did neither filed their written versions nor contested the case. As a result the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) were set ex-parte on Dt.06/04/2015. The Opposite Party No.3(three) and No.4(four) did not appear and respond to the proceedings hence set ex-parte on Dt.09/12/2014.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Complainant on the date fixed for hearing.We have gone through the case of the Complainant and perused the case record and documents relied on by the Complainant. On careful consideration of the complaint petition, it is clear that the purchase of the Mobile phone from the Opposite Party No.4(four) is proved from the copy of the invoice annexed in the case record. Copy of service job-sheet filed by the Complainant telling about the defect in the Mobile set. The three numbers of job card clearly show the repeated defects of Mobile set and repeated visit of the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.3(three).The Opposite Parties were also neither contested in this case to counter that there is no manufacturing defect in the said mobile nor returned the handset to the Complainant after complete repair nor exchanged the Mobile Set with a new one. The Opposite Parties have also not filed their version and also failed to adduce any evidence before the Forum that there is no manufacturing defect in the said phone. Though No warranty card has been filed by the Complainant but the job card clearly shows that the defect occurred in the Mobile Set after three months of its purchase which is definitely in the warranty period which the Complainant made aware to the Opposite Parties within the warranty period, which was neither replaced nor rectified by the Opposite Parties in due course of time amounts to utter deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties to the customer. Although notices were duly received by them but they did not appeared which clearly shows that they are willfully disobeying the orders of the Forum. Due to these act and attitude of the Opposite Parties and intentional delay to rectify the defect, the Complainant has not only suffered mentally but also got financial loss and purpose of purchasing of Mobile Set at a high consideration by him has also been frustrated. Hence gross negligence and deficiency of service lies with the Opposite Parties for which they are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Complainant from what he suffered. This Forum by relying upon a citation passed by Hon'ble Chhatisgarh State Commission, Raipur in Krishna Kumar Sahu Vrs Manager Jai Sheri Electronics and others reported in 2010 (1) CPR 149 where it is held that “it is duty of manufacturer/ dealer to repair defect in a product during warranty period within a reasonable time. In the light of the above decisions of law we allow the case. The harassment of the consumer mentioned above is sufficient to draw inference that the set has manufacturing defect. Besides that we would like to point out that though the Opposite Party No.1(one) No.2(two) appeared in this case through learned counsels but subsequently neither filed their written version nor prefere to contests the case. So also the Opposite Party No.3(three) and No.4(four) inspite of Notice from the Forum did into appeared and contest the case which shows their indifferent attitude towards a genuine consumer problem of a bonafide consumer. We are there fore constrained to accept the uncontroverted allegations of the Complainant that the said Mobile set was defective and for that the Complainant has been suffered a lot, the Opposite Parties are bound to compensate the said loss.
In the result we allow the case of the Complainant, ex-parte against the Opposite Parties.
- O R D E R -
The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable either to provide a new handset of same make and model or to refund Rs. 20,500/-(Rupees twenty thousand five hundred)only to the complainant towards cost of the Mobile set along with compensations of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand)only towards mental agony , harassment and litigation cost. The above order has to be complied within thirty days hence, failing which the awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till the realization of amount.
Case is disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree, I agree,
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) ( Smt. Anjali Behera)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r.
