DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 PARGANAS, BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 669/2014
Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
10.12.2014 18.12.2014 11.06.2015
COMPLAINANT Vs. = OPPOSITE PARTIES
Mr. Asif Ikbal, 1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.
S/o Md. Sahajan, CD – 7, Salt Lake City, Sector – 1,
Tech Park, Kolkata – 700064.
DN – 52,
Sector – V, 2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.
Salt Lake, 10 A, Pressman House, 2nd Floor,
Kolkata – 700091. Lee Road, Lala Lajpat Roy Sarani,
P.S. Ballygunge, Kolkata – 700020.
3. ABM Sales Corporation,
Shop No. B 105, City Centre II,
Kolkata – 700157.
J U D G E M E N T
Filtering out the unnecessary details in the complaint, the Complainant’s case may be summarized thus :-
In diminutive, the case stated in the complaint, is that, the Complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile phone [Model No. GT 19192 ZKAINS, S/N : RZIF 30 Gwz 6 J (357965057334727)] on 17.04.2014, from the Opposite Party No. 3.
Written & Typed by Contd.…. 2/-
C. C. CASE NO. 669/2014
-:: 2 ::-
But on the very next day of purchase on 18.04.2014 the said mobile phone found to be defected, when the Complainant was on a official tour to Dhaka and after returning to India the Complainant informed the matter to the Opposite Party on 10.05.2014 and requested to replace the said mobile phone but was refused and the Opposite Party sent the same to the Service Centre for repairing. Thereafter the Service Centre opined that the ‘Mother Board’ of the said mobile phone was defective and replaced the ‘Mother Board’ of the same and had returned back the said mobile phone. But again 2 or 3 days the said mobile phone further disturbing and at this time the Opposite Party refused to accept the same and sent the Complainant to the Service Centre on 26.05.2014. After checking the said mobile phone the technical person told that the problem was occurred due to software update. The Service Centre tried to solve the said problem but it remains as before. So the Complainant decided not to collect the said mobile phone as the same has/had the manufacturing defect.
The Complainant requested the Opposite Party by written communication on 01.07.2014 to replace the said mobile phone or to refund the price of the same, but of no result, what amounts the deficiency and negligence on part of the Opposite Parties, for which the Complainant claimed the compensation due to such sufferings and harassment and mental agony and has to file the instant case seeking adequate redressal.
Resisting the complaint, the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 and the Opposite Party No. 3 by filing separate Written Versions denying all the contentions and all material allegations made by the Complainant in the petition of complaint and stating inter alia, that the Complainant has no locus standai, and the case is not maintainable either in law or in fact.
The specific case, as stated by the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2, in terse, is that, admittedly the Complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile phone and the Service Centre of the Opposite Party updated the software and on finding no issue in hardware of the said mobile phone in hardware and returned the same to the Complainant and there was no question of replacing the ‘Mother Board’ of the same.
Written & Typed by Contd.…. 3/-
C. C. CASE NO. 669/2014
-:: 3 ::-
The Service Centre of the Opposite Party found no defects in the said mobile phone and informed the Complainant to collect the same but the Complainant refused to collect the same demanding the replacement of the same. The Opposite Party had also requested the Complainant to collect or to provide home delivery of the said mobile phone but was refused.
The Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 has no liability to replace or to refund the price amount to the Complainant, for which these Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the case against them.
The case, as a whole, stated by the Opposite Party No. 3, in gist, is that, this Opposite party relied upon the allegations of the Complainant stated that the Service Centre of the Opposite Party updated the software and on finding no issue in hardware of the said mobile phone in hardware and returned the same to the Complainant and there was no question of replacing the ‘Mother Board’ of the same. The Service Centre of the Opposite Party found no defects in the said mobile phone and informed the Complainant to collect the same but the Complainant refused to collect the same demanding the replacement of the same, although the Complainant had received a call from the Service Centre to receive the same. The Opposite Party No. 3 repeatedly informed the Complainant that there are no defects in the said mobile phone for which the Opposite Party is not liable to replace or to refund the price of the same.
Thus, the Opposite Party No. 3 denied any deficiency and negligence against the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the case against them.
Points for Consideration
1. Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?
2. Was there any negligence or deficiency in service
on the part of the O.Ps ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Written & Typed by Contd.…. 4/-
C. C. CASE NO. 669/2014
-:: 4 ::-
Decision with Reasons
All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.
We have carefully considered and scrutinized the submission made before us by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and also the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 and the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 3 and also critically perused all the material documents on record.
On overall evaluation of the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocates of both the parties, and on critical appreciation of the case record, it is clearly evident and also admitted by the both parties that Complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile phone [Model No. GT 19192 ZKAINS, S/N : RZIF 30 Gwz 6 J (357965057334727)] on 17.04.2014, from the Opposite Party No. 3 for cost of Rs. 22,900/- only.
The record reveals from the photocopies of the documents filed by the Complainant that the Complainant hand over the said mobile phone, alleged to be defected, to the Service Centre of the Opposite Party on 20.05.2014 for repairing and after returning the same the said mobile phone further had started disturbing and the Complainant further deposited the same to the Service Centre of the Opposite Party on 26.05.2014.
Now the fact remains that the Complainant admitted that he is not ready to collect the said mobile phone as the same has/had the manufacturing defect, for which the said mobile phone had started problem just after next day of the purchasing. It is clearly evident from the photocopies of the documents filed by the Complainant that the said the mobile phone was purchased on 17.04.2014 and after disturbance of the same the Complainant had delivered the same to the Service Centre of the Opposite Party on 20.05.2014 and further on 26.05.2014 and thereafter do not agree to receive the same from the Service Centre of the Opposite Party.
Written & Typed by Contd.…. 5/-
C. C. CASE NO. 669/2014
-:: 5 ::-
Manifestly it is crystal clear from the photocopies of the documents filed by the Complainant that the said mobile phone is very much within the warranty period and thus the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 being the manufacturer company, are still liable to satisfy their customer/ bonafide consumer/Complainant when their product suffers from manufacturer defect.
So, unanimously the Forum inclined to hold that the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 is still liable to replace the same with a new one of same model, same size and same colour to the Complainant, failure of which the Opposite Party is still liable refund the entire cost price of the said mobile phone of Rs. 22,900/- only to the Complainant.
Moreover, though the Opposite Party No. 3 is only the dealer of the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2, he has no direct liability towards the Complainant, except only to deliver the said replaced mobile phone to the Complainant.
Therefore, from the discussions made above, it is concluded that the Complainant has successfully proved his case. So, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for and consequently the points for consideration are decided in affirmative.
In short, the Complainant deserves success.
In the result, we proceed to pass
O R D E R
That the case be and same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- only payable by the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order and also allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No. 3, but without any cost.
Written & Typed by Contd.…. 6/-
C. C. CASE NO. 669/2014
-:: 6 ::-
That the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to replace the said Samsung mobile phone [Model No. GT 19192 ZKAINS, S/N : RZIF 30 Gwz 6 J (357965057334727)] with a new one of same model, same size and same colour to the Complainant, within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
That in default to comply the aforesaid order, the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally are further directed to refund the entire cost price of the said mobile phone of Rs. 22,900/- only to the Complainant within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
That That the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- only to the Complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
That in case of non-compliance of the order passed by the Forum, the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 is further directed to pay Rs. 200/- per day from the date of this order till its realization, as punitive damages, which shall be deposited by the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost forthwith.
Member Member President
