BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 26/09/2014
Date of Order : 06/12/2014
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
C.C. No. 726/2014
Between
Liby Abraham, | :: | Complainant |
Moozhiyil (H), Pala. P.O., Pala – 686 575. | | (Party-in-person) |
And
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., | :: | Opposite Parties |
Rep. by its M.D., A 25 Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-oeprative Industrial Estate, New Delhi – 100 044. 2. Area Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Aryabhangi, Pinackal, Opp. Varsha Apartments, Elamkulam, Kadavanthra. 3. Proprietor, Alif Mobile, Penta Menaka, Shop No. B1, Shanmugham Road, Ernakulam. 4. Proprietor, Samsung Service Centre, Pala, Kattakkayam Road, Near Sulabha Super Market, Pala – 686 575. | | (Op.pts. absent) |
O R D E R
Sheen Jose, Member.
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant alleging manufacturing defect in the mobile handset purchased by the complainant from the 3rd opposite party, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party.
2. Despite service of notice from this Forum, the opposite parties 1 to 3 did not respond to the same for reasons of their own. The notice of the 4th opposite party has not been completed. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 and A2 were marked. Heard the complainant who appeared in person.
3. Ext. A1 retail invoice goes to show that the complainant purchased a mobile handset from the 3rd opposite party at a price of Rs. 49,900/-, which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. According to the complainant, he had to approach the 4th opposite party on three occasions to get the handset repaired. He maintains that in addition to the above repairs, he approached the 3rd opposite party to get the defects repaired. During the proceedings, the complainant submitted that finally he entrusted the mobile phone with the 4th opposite party on 09-09-2014 evident from Ext. A2 service report and till date they could not repair and return the same to the complainant.
4. We are of the considered opinion that the recurring defect of the mobile handset is only due to its manufacturing defect. In that case, the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the handset with a new one according to the choice of the complainant. The above direction is enough to console the grievances of the complainant, so we refrain from awarding compensation and costs of the proceedings.
5. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and directs that the opposite parties 1 to 3 shall replace the mobile handset of the complainant with a new one according to the choice of the complainant with fresh warranty. The difference in price shall be met by either. It is made clear that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are at liberty to collect the disputed mobile handset from the 4th opposite party.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 6th day of December 2014.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of the retail invoice dt. 28-02-2014 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the service request dt. 09-09-2014 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
=========