Presented by Miss R.Pattnayak, President.
Sri Sumanta Kumar Pradhan has filed this complaint U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 praying therein that, Opposite Parties be directed to:
(i) Pay Rs.5,600/-(Rupees five thousand six hundred)only towards he value/price of the said Samsung Mobile set.
(ii) Pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand)only as compensation for negligence and deficiency in service.
In brief, the case of the Complainant is that, on dated 25/06/2011, he purchased one Mobile Set bearing IMEI No.359658030280251, Model Samsung B-3210 phone from the retailer i.e Shree Sourav Sales, Main Road, Bargarh ( Opposite Party No.4(four)) for Rs. 5,600/-(Rupees five thousand six hundred)only for his personal use.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) is the importer and product controller of Samsung Mobile Sets. The Opposite Party No.2(two), is the person to look after the consumer complaint and provide consumer service to satisfy consumers of samsung products for Odisha region. The Opposite Party No.3(three) is the person who used to provide after sale services to the consumer being authorized by the company.
At the time of purchase of the said Mobile set, the cash memo bearing No.899 was issued by Opposite Party No.4 (four) to the Complainant showing purchase of the Mobile and has made endorsement on it to the effect that, the Mobile set is covered under warranty for one year.
According to the Complainant, after using the product for some months, he found that, the set is having audio receiver problem and is not functioning properly. So, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.3(three) on Dt.01/07/2011 and requested to solve the problem but Opposite Party No.3(three) instead of solving the problem kept the Moibile set in his custody without curing the fault and without providing the requisite service there of, which is illegal, because the mobile is being defective during its warranty period. This is the violation of warranty rule by the concerned service provider.
It has been pleaded by the Complainant that, despite his repeated requests to Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) over telephone through Opposite Party No.3(three), the Opposite Parties failed to cure the defect, which amounts to deficiency in service.
Again, it has been also pleaded by the Complainant, that, 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) and No.2(two) to solve his problem, the Opposite Party No.3(three) pay no heed. The Complainant has handed over the said mobile set for repair to the Opposite Party No.3(three) against which the said Opposite Party No.3(three) issued a service job sheet on Dt.01/07/2011 and assured to return the mobile after repair but till to-day the mobile set is with the Opposite Party No.3(three). Finding no other way, the Complainant had caused service of pleaders notice on the Opposite Parties, which were received by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No. 2(two), Opposite Party No.3(three) but they did not give any reply, otherwise remained silent. 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 this illegal act of the Opposite Parties.
In these circumstances the present complaint was filed seeking the relief mentioned above.
The Complainant has filed following documents to prove his case.
(i) Cash memo bearing No.899, dated 25/06/2011 issued by Opposite Party No.4.
(ii) Copy of service job sheet No.786, Dt.01/07/2011 issued by Opposite Party No.3.
(iii) Pleaders Notice Dt.13/08/2011.
Notices were duly served on the Opposite Parties. SR back from Opposite Party No.1(one) to No.4(four) and the case was posted for appearance and version by the Opposite Parties, but no body were appeared on their behalf either in person or through counsel except Opposite Party No.4(four). Hence, on Dt.16/02/2012, Opposite Party No.1(one), No.2(two) and No.3(three) were set ex-parte. Opposite Party No.4(four) appeared on Dt.16/12/2011 and submitted his version on Dt.13/01/2012.
In his version as well as in the oral argument Opposite Party No.4(four) while denying all the allegations raised by the Complainant, have admitted that, the Complainant had purchased the Mobile Set from him and approached him in the month of June 2011 and agitated his grievance regarding some problem with the mobile set, but he had requested the Complainant to put fourth his grievance before the Opposite Party No.1(one), No.2(two) and No.3(three), as he is not authorized by the company to provide after sale service. The Opposite Party No.4(four) has also submitted that, as there is no negligence in rendering any service to the Complainant by the Opposite Party No.4(four), the case is liable to be dismissed in the ends of justice.
Relying on the pleading of the parties, we take up the following issues for adjudication.
-: I S S U S E :-
1) Are the Opposite Parties guilty of deficiency in service?
2) Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief?
3) Whether compensation has to be awarded as prayed for by the Complainant and to what compensation the Complainant is entitled for?
On careful consideration of the complaint petition, version of Opposite Party No.4(four) and after hearing both the parties, we found that purchase of the Mobile Phone from Opposite Party No.4(four) admitted by both the parties which is also proved further through the documentary evidence annexed in the case record. It is also undisputed that, the said Mobile Set was under warranty period. Opposite Party No.4(four) in his version also accepted the occurring of problem with the Mobile Phone. Thus, the facts admitted need not be proved again. Again, the service job sheet filed by the Complainant telling about the defect in Mobile Set, mentioning the nature of complaint “Audio receiver problem”. The Opposite Party No.1(one), No.2(two) and No.3(three) were also neither contested in this case to counter that, there is no manufacturing defect in the said mobile nor returned the said handsets to the Complainant after complete repair. They have not filed their version and also failed to adduce any evidence before the forum that, there is no manufacturing defect in the said phone. This clearly shows that they are will fully disobeying the orders of the court.
The defect occurred in the said mobile which the Complainant made aware to the Opposite Party within the warranty period, which was not replaced or rectified by the Opposite Parties in due course of time amounts to utter deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties to the customer.
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 physical harassment and the purpose of purchasing of Mobile Set by him has also been frustrated.
Hence, the Opposite Parties are negligent in duty and deficient in providing proper service to the customer. In these circumstances the complaint petition is allowed.
-: O R D E R :-
The Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to pay the Complainant Rs. 5,600/-(Rupees five thousand six hundred)only towards the price of the said Mobile Set and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only as compensation for negligence and deficiency in service. This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within one month from the date of Order i.e Dt.21/011/2012, failing which the total awarded amount shall carry interest @ 18% (eighteen percent)per annum till the final realization.
Accordingly, the case is allowed and disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree,
(Miss. Rajlaxmi Pattanaik) (Smt. Anjali Behera)
P r e s i d e n t. Member.
