For the Complainant : - C. M. Patel & Associates.
For the Op No. 1 :- Self.
For the Op No. 2 & 3 :- Sri Ramesh Sahoo Adv. & associates.
O R D E R Dated:18.03.2015
SRI ARUN KUMAR PATEL, PRESIDENT:
1. Deficiency in service against the opposite parties is the grievance of the complainant.
2. In brief the case of the complainant is that, he has purchase a Samsung mobile set (Samsung Galaxy S4 mini-19192) on dt. 18.03.2014 vide company product number 357965055608338 from the dealer Op.No-2 for a consideration amount of Rs.23, 500/-. The said mobile set was found defect functioning no incoming and outgoing calls within two months from the date of purchased, hence requested for exchange to the dealer as it was within the period of warranty but no response so, the complainant send complain letter to the Op. No-1. Since day passed on several request when the complainant did not get any reply from Op.1 with the direction of Op No. 2 handed over the defected mobile set to the Op No. 3, authorised servicing centre on dated 22.05.2014 at Jharsuguda for its repair. The complainant waited to get a new mobile set from the Op No. 2, but he neither got any new mobile set nor cost of the mobile handset. The complainant due to aforesaid negligence act and deficiency in their service sustained huge losses with harassment of physical and mental agony. Hence, this complaint petition is filed by the complainant praying for replacement of a new and defect free mobile set of same model or the cost value thereof to him with payment compensation of Rs. 30,000/-.
4. Ops entered appearance before the Forum and filed their written version challenging the contents in the complaint petition that, the case is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The Op No. 2 in his separate written statement admitting the fact of selling mobile set to the complainant has denied anything about the defects in it. The Op is mere a dealer who earns nominal profit from purchasing the handsets from the company and selling them to retail customers and hence he is not liable to any reliefs, claimed by the complainant against the defective mobile set. Op No. 1 & 3 in their joint written statement stated that, if any defect in the mobile handset the customer was informed to lodge complain with Authorized Service Centre only and if the handset is within the period of warranty, the same shall be repaired free of cost and the defective parts will be replaced only. No complain send by the complainant has been received by them in this regard except complain before ASC dated 22.05.2014. The ASC retained the handset for observation. The complainant was requested to take back the handset on the very next day of depositing the handset but the complainant did not turn up to take back the handset as there was no defect on it. The complainant did not come to the ASC to receive the handset, as a result whereof the same is still lying with the ASC. Since there is no defect in handset question of replacement does not arise. The complaint petition is against the extant of law and being illegal, it is liable to be rejected.
5. Heard the case of the complaint, perused the complaint petition and written statements with material of documents available in the records, we could satisfy that, there was defect in the mobile handset of the complainant purchased from the dealer Op 2. The Ops alleged there is no defects in the mobile handset is not true, otherwise he would not have retained the same in his possession, however the defects itself may be a minor one. Considering the documents of repairing cash receipt and warranty card vide Annexure-“A” and “B” the fact of defect in mobile handset is never be disbelieved. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Ops are liable to replace a new and defect free mobile handset of same model in place of defective mobile of the complainant.
Under the fact and circumstances, we direct the Op No. 1 to replace a new and defect free mobile handset of same model in place of defective mobile set or cost of its value of Rs. 23,500/- ( Rupees twenty three thousand five hundred) only through the Op. No-2 with payment of extra litigation cost of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Op No. 2 Prop. Muskan Music Plaza, Hospital Chowk, Sundargarh is specifically directed to make arrangement for providing litigation cost with replacement of a new defect free mobile set or cost of the value of mobile handset to the complainant on his own risk.
The order is pronounced in the open court today the 18th March, 2015 under the signature and seal of the forum and copy of order be communicated to the parties as per rule.
The case is disposed of accordingly.
