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. 391/2011 Filed on 12.12.2011

Dated : 16.04.2012

Complainant :

Sujith P.V, Prasanna Bhavan, Pulloorkonam, Vizhinjam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(Party in person)

Opposite parties :

1. Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110 044.

    

2. Samsung Service Smart Electronics, T.C 28/986, Sreekanteswaram, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

3. Mobily, N.N. Tower, T.C 3/2774(2), Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-4.

This O.P having been heard on 07.04.2012, the Forum on 16.04.2012 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Complainant purchased a mobile phone from the 3^rd opposite party on 26.08.2010 for an amount of Rs. 17,500/-. The 1^st opposite party Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd. is the manufacturer of this phone. Immediately after the 2 months of use the speaker of the mobile phone became defective and the complainant informed the matter to the 3^rd opposite party. Then the 3^rd opposite party advised the complainant to approach the 2^nd opposite party, the service centre. The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party cleaned the phone and returned to the complainant and assured that the phone has not complaints. But thereafter the condition of the mobile phone became more worse. The complainant again approached the opposite party and the opposite party again serviced the phone. But thereafter the LCD screen of the mobile became defective and the 2^nd opposite party assured the complainant that they will replace the LCD screen free of cost since the defect is within the warranty period. The 2^nd opposite party repaired the phone within two weeks and handed over to the complainant. But after one month the phone again damaged. The phone automatically became silent. The complainant alleges that the phone again and again became defective and at last he requested the opposite parties to replace a new phone or refund the price of the mobile. But the opposite parties were not ready to accept that demand. The complainant states that he is working as a Sales Manager in a Multi-national insurance company. He purchased this much costly phone for the smooth functioning of his job. But due to the defect of the phone he has lost his clients and thereby he has caused huge loss and mental agony. Hence he prayed Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation.

In this case opposite parties remained ex-parte. Complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has produced 7 documents to prove his contentions.

Points to be ascertained:-

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

2. Reliefs and costs.

    

Points (i) & (ii):- In this case the complainant had purchased a mobile phone from the 2^nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. Ext. P1 is the invoice which shows that the price of the phone is Rs. 17,500/- and date of purchase is 26.08.2010. The case of the complainant is that at the very beginning of its purchase date itself it became defective. He approached the 2^nd opposite party, its authorized service centre several times. The 2^nd opposite party several times repaired the mobile phone, but the defects are increasing day by day. At last the complainant sent a complaint to its Cochin office on 27.10.2011. They replied that they have forwarded the complaint to their department concerned. The opposite parties tried their level best to rectify the defect of the phone. But they could not cure the defect. Then the complainant repeatedly requested the opposite parties to replace a new phone or refund its price. Ext. P3 to P7 are the communication letter with the complainant and opposite parties. The complainant in this case is working as a Sales Manager in Multi National Insurance company. He purchased this type of costly phone for the smooth functioning of his official duties. But due to the defect of the phone he has lost his clients and their contact numbers. Due to the incurable complaint of the mobile phone he has suffered too much mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss.

In this case the opposite parties remained ex-parte, hence the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant stands unchallenged. From the evidences we find that the mobile phone became defective within two months of its purchase date i.e; within the warranty period. Hence the opposite parties have the liability to replace a new phone to the complainant or refund its price, as the opposite parties have failed to do their duty. Hence we find that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties and thereby complainant has suffered too much mental agony and financial loss. Hence opposite parties are held liable to compensate the complainant. Hence complaint is allowed.

In the result, opposite parties are directed to refund the price of the mobile phone i.e; Rs. 17,500/- to the complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Otherwise 12% annual interest shall be paid for the entire amount.

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 16^th day of April 2012.

Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 391/2011

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Bill No. 5732 dated 26.08.2010 issued by 3^rd opposite party.

P2 - Copy of postal receipt dated 27.10.2011

P3 - Letter sent by Area Service Manager, Samsung India

Electronics (P) Ltd., Cochin to complainant.

P4 - Letter sent by complainant to opposite party.

P5 - E-mail dated 23.10.2011 sent by opposite party.

P6 - Letter sent by complainant to opposite party.

P7 - E-mail sent by complainant to opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb