DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C NO.42 OF 2015
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President.
Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik - Member.
Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy - Member
Santosh Kumar Digal, aged – 52 years
S/O: Late Mohan Digal At: Aurobinda Nagar
PO/PS: Phulbani Town Dist: Kandhamal ………………… Complainant.
Versus.
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Limited
Head Office- 2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor Tower C.Vipul Tech, Square,
Gulf course Road, Gurugam Sector- 43 PIN: 122002.
2. WS Retail Service Pvt. Ltd. Ware house Adress No. 42/1
Of Kacherakanahalli Village Jadi Jena Hilli Hobba,
IR/SKOTE TALUK, Bangalore, Karnatak
3.Flipkard.com Flipkart.com customer-18002089898
OZORE Manager Techpark No- 55/18’B’Block, 9th Floor,
Varvebhavipalya HUSUR ROAD, Babgalor-560068 Karnatak, INDIA
Phone No.-918049083999, CIN-072900KA 2009PTC-051023. ……………………..OPP. Parties.
For the Complainant: Self.
For the OPP. Parties: Sri K.C. Mohapatra Advocate & his Associates
Date of Order: 27-10-2016
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in short is that his wife had purchased a handset of Samsung Galaxy S3 Neo at Rs. 10,499/-, which had been billed against one Sunanda Pradhan . The handset was delivered to him at May Fair Square, Jayadev Vihar, Bhubaneswar on 31-03-2015, but the
-2-
handset was found defective during the period of warranty. So, the Complainant lodged the complaint before the Consumer Counseling Center, Phulbani vide No.C-147/2015. As there was no response the Complainant has filed this complaint against the O.Ps for a direction to the O.Ps to provide a new non defective handset of Samsung Galaxy S 3 and to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for his mental agony.
The case of the O.P No.1 as per his version is that One Sunanda Pradhan of May Fair Square , Jayadev Vihar , Bhubaneswar had purchased the handset of Samsung Galaxy S3 through Website reseller Flip kart.com (O.P No.2) on 31-03-2015, but he has not filed any complaint before him for which there is no cause of action to file this complaint . The O.P No.1, the manufacturer of the said mobile phone supplied the warranty card to the Complainant, if any defect will arise in said handset within the warranty period of one year, the O.P No.1 will engage the authorized Samsung Service Center(ASSC) to rectify the defect of the mobile phone without any cost and after warranty period the defect will be removed with cost .Hence, there is no defect in the handset of the Complainant .This complaint was filed by the Complainant to harass the O.Ps and there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P No.1. The Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed by him as the complaint is false, imaginary, fabricated and baseless.
The case of the O.P No.2 & 3 as per their joint version is that the O.P No.2 & 3 are engaged the selling of goods manufactured and produced by the manufacturer, The O.P No.1 being the manufacturer is responsible to cure the defect for which the Complaint is not maintainable . Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P No.2 & 3. The O.P No.2 & 3 are merely reseller registered on “Flipkart.com” and the products brought by the Complainant carries warranty provided by the respective manufacturers. So, the O.P No. 2 & 3 are wrongly impleaded in this case by the Complainant for which, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel appearing for all the O.Ps. We have gone through the Complaint petition, version filed by O.ps, the documents filed by the Complainant and the affidavits filed by the O.Ps. It is an admitted fact that one Sunanda Pradhan had purchased the handset of Samsung Galaxy S3 for Rs. 10,499/- from the O.Ps on 31-03-2015. It is alleged by the Complainant that he intimated the fact to O.P No.1 and 3 but they remained silent without taking any effective step. This complaint was filed by the Complainant on 19-11-2015 within
-3-
the warranty period. The Complainant was authorized by Sunanda Pradhan to file and conduct the case on his behalf. So, the allegation of the Complainant that the handset mobile was found defective can not be disbelieved. It is admitted by O.P No.2 & 3 in their joint version that the O.P No.1 being a manufacturer is solely responsible to cure the defect as the warranty period was not over. As the Opposite Party No.1 is responsible to rectify the defect or to replace the handset, the complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part .
The O.P No.1 is directed to repair the handset of the Samsung Galaxy S3 New which was purchased by Sunanda Pradhan from O.P No.3 on 31-03-2015 with free of cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order .If defect in manufacture will be pointed out at the time of repair of the said mobile set, the Complainant will be entitled to get a new handset of mobile from O.P No.1 within the said period. In case of failure the Complainant shall claim Rs. 10,499/- the cost of the Samsung Galaxy S3 mobile from the O.P No.1 as per provision of the C.P Act .
With the above direction, the C.C is disposed of. Suply free copy of this order to both the parties.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
