For the Complainant: :– Self.
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 Core-18262) on dt. 07.04.2014 vide company product number 359710056514277 from the dealer Op.No-2 for a consideration amount of Rs.13, 500/-. The said mobile set was found defect functioning no incoming and outgoing calls within three 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 through toll free number lodged complain to the Op. No-1. Since day passed on several request when the complainant did not get any reply from Op.1 handed over the defected mobile set to the Op No. 3, authorised servicing centre on dated 02.07.2014 at Jharsuguda for its repair. On receipt of Rs. 350/- towards repairing charges Op. 3 delivered the mobile to the complainant after its repair, but the repaired made by the servicing centre Op .3 was no more lasting and found, out of order having same defects in it. 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 to him with payment compensation award 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 through tool free has been received by them in this regard except complain before ASC dated 02.07.2014 and at the time of depositing handset it was entirely liquid logged which happens due to misuse of the set. As there was misuse of handset the warranty becomes void the customer is liable to pay the repairing charges. It is false to allege that, there was defect in the mobile set after repairing and the complainant has never visited the op No. 3 (ASC) for more than 10 times. 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 dispute nothing as to the defects alleged in the complaint petition by the complainant rather make admission that, within the valid period of warranty there was defect in mobile handset of Liquid damage and Set Auto off. Which corroborates the documents of repairing cash receipt and warranty card vide Annexure-“A” and “B”. Considering the fact of defect in mobile handset and its reason of defect, it never be disbelieved that, there was subsequent defect in mobile handset. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Ops are liable to replace a new and defect free mobile hand set 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 of the complainant through the Op. No-2 with payment of 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 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.
