BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 14th June 2013
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.10/2013
(Admitted on 11.1.2013)
Vinay,
So Mallappa,
Aged about 28 years,
Rat.Ramakunja,
Puttur, D.K. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant: Sri.Sanjay.D)
VERSUS
1. Managing Director,
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
3rd Floor 7th Floor, I.F.C.I. Tower,
61, Nehru Place, New Delhi 19.
2. Manager,
Pai International Electronics Ltd.,
Ground Floor, Abhiman Plaza,
Near Bunts Hostel Circle,
Mangalore-03. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite Parties :Exparte)
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. 1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging defect in goods against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant stated that, he has purchased Samsung Digital Camera ES-25 as per receipt No.046236 dated 15.10.2010 for Rs.6,000/- from the 2nd Opposite Party and the 1st Opposite Party is the Manufacturer and the 2nd Opposite Party is the authorized service centre of Samsung brand. The above camera set has two years warranty from the date of purchase.
It is further stated that, when the matter stood thus, the above Digital Camera set used to switch off often and the battery backup was very low within a week of the purchase of the camera set. Hence the camera set was handed over to the 2nd Opposite Party for repair on 28.2.2011. At that time the 2nd Opposite Party promised to repair the Camera set within few days. But the 2nd Opposite Party did not keep up the promise and dragged on the date of delivery on one or other pretext. Till today the above Camera given for repair is not delivered to the complainant. Hence the complainant got issued registered lawyer’s notice dated 23.11.2011 to the Opposite Parties and the same was served on the 2nd Opposite Party on 24.11.2011 and notice issued to the 1st Opposite Party returned un served.
It is further stated that the above camera set has some defect and because of that the camera set used to switch off regularly due to poor battery backup and could not be repaired by the 2nd Opposite Party even after it was given for repair 9 months back and contended that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service and hence the Complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.6,000/- within 12% interest from 15.10.2010 till payment to the complainant along with compensation and costs of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 inspite of receiving version notice neither appeared nor contested the case before this FORA. Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.1 and 2. The acknowledgement marked as Court Doc. No.1 and 2.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Mr.Vinay (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint. Ex C1 to C6 were exhibited for the Complainant as listed in the annexure in detail. Opposite parties not filed any affidavit nor filed any documents and placed exparte.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves the Samsung Digital Camera ES-25 purchased on 15.10.2010 from the opposite parties suffers from any defect?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the complainant and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINTS NO. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case, the Complainant in order to substantiate the averments made in the complaint filed evidence on affidavit and produced Ex.C1 to C6. The Ex.C1 is the original Tax Invoice dated 15.10.2010 shows that the Complainant purchased the Samsung digital camera ES 25 along with accessories for Rs.6,000/-. The Ex.C2 is the warranty card issued by the Opposite Party reveals that the above said digital camera has warranty one year from the date of purchase. Ex.C3 is the job card issued by Pai International Electronics dated 28.2.2011 reveals that the above said Digital camera purchased by the Complainant has no battery backup and the Complainant handed over the handset for repair and Ex.C4 is the legal notice dated 23.11.2011 shows that the Complainant issued legal notice called upon the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 stating that the above said camera has manufacturing defect and even after it was given for repair nine months back it has not been repaired and called for refund of amount. The above said notice has been served to the Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.1 returned unserved.
We have further noted that, in the instant case, the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 served with the version notice issued by this Authority by RPAD inspite of the same the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 not appeared nor contested the case. The entire evidence placed by the Complainant is unrebutted and hence it requires no further proof. We further noted that, the attitude of the Opposite Parties shows that they are not bothered to response the court notice too. If at all the allegation made by the Complainant is not admitted, the Opposite Parties should have shown to the court that the digital camera sold by them has no manufacturing defect nor any other defect. But it is surprise to note that, the Opposite Party No.2 inspite of receiving the digital camera for repair not returned the camera to the consumer herein the Complainant shows their negligence. We further noted that, the Opposite Party No.2 taken the Digital Camera for repair 9 months back inspite of that they have not repaired nor responsed to the complainant till this date amounts to their deficiency in service.
However, the job card along with other documents produced by the complainant proved beyond doubt that the Digital Camera manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1 has some defect and the same has not been rectified by the Opposite parties inspite of the Digital Camera set has the warranty in this case. Therefore, we hold that, the digital camera sold by the Opposite parties in this case is proved to be defective and the digital camera is with the opposite party and the Opposite Parties are liable to either replace the new digital camera or refund the amount.
Generally, if the goods has manufacturing defect is to be borne by the manufacturer. That would not mean that, the dealer is absolved from joint and several liabilities. As we know, the manufacturer not deals with the customers directly. Dealer having received the amount, undertaken free service and rectify defect during the warranty do not escape liability towards the manufacturing defect found in the camera. As we know, the contract through dealer, privity of contract is with him. To ensure execution expeditiously and immediately, if necessary by making the payment/replacement to the Complainant initially and then it will be for the dealer to claim reimbursement from the manufacturer. Therefore, the dealer and the manufacturer both are jointly and severally liable for the defects found in the camera in this case.
Under that circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that, replacing the new digital camera will not meet the ends of justice because the attitude of the Opposite Parties towards the customer herein complainant is not satisfactory. Therefore, we hereby directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund the entire amount i.e. Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only) to the Complainant and also pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards the damages for the inconvenience and the harassment caused to the Complainant and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally shall refund Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only) to the Complainant. Further pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as damages and also pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount within the stipulated time, the Opposite Party is directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above said total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 8 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 14th June 2013)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri. Vinay – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 15.10.2010: Original Tax Invoice.
Ex C2 – 15.10.2010: Original Warranty Card.
Ex C3 – 28.2.2011: Original Job card.
Ex C4 – 23.11.2011: O/c. of the regd. Lawyer’s notice.
Ex C5 – 24.11.2011: Postal acknowledgement of O.P. 2.
Ex C6 – 28.11.2011: Unserved regd. Post of O.P.1
Court documents:
Doc.No.1 & No.2 : Postal Acknowledgements.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
- Nil -
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
- Nil –
Dated:14.6.2013 PRESIDENT
