CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

                                                                                                                                   Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No.187/10

 

Saturday the 30^th day of April, 2011

 

Petitioner                                              : Shiju K.P

                                                             Karivelil Tharayil House,

                                                             Kaduthuruthy PO

                                                             Vellassery Kara,

                                                               Kottayam Dist.

                                                             (Adv T.M. Xavierkutty)

 

                                                        Vs.

Opposite party                                     : 1) Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd.

                                                                   7^th Floor and 8^th Floor,

                                                                 IFCI Tower, 61 Nehru Place,

                                                                 New Delhi 110019.

                                                             2) Mr. Biju, Proprietor,

                                                                  Multi Link Mobile Show Room

                                                                  Kuplikkattu Building, Main Raod,

                                                                  Kaduthuruthy PO, Kottayam Dist. 

 

 

 

 

            The complainant’s case is as follows.

 

            The complainant purchased a mobile handset branded as “Samsung Guru 1080” from the 2^nd opposite party for Rs. 1450/- on 14/11/2009. From the 3^rd month onwards it started showing complaints and it was handed over to the 2^nd opposite party on 8/3/2010 for getting it repaired. The mobile operator of the 2^nd opposite party inserted a piece of paper under the sim saying that it was loose. But his attempt was in vain. So he received the set for repair and told the petitioner to come back after one week. On 16-3-2010 petitioner went to the 2^nd opposite party, but the set was not repaired. On 20-3-10 it was returned to the complainant without properly assembled. The sim was not properly inserted and it was not fit for use. The 2^nd opposite party informed that they will contact the manufacturer and complaint them about the manufacturing defect. Even though the complainant approached them four times he did not get any positive information from the part of the 2^nd opposite party. As the phone is not working from the 3^rd month onwards the petitioner is forced to use other’s phone and he is in much difficulty and inconvenience. The opposite parties are bound to rectify the mistake which has occurred during warranty period. The complainant alleged that the act of opposite parties in not rectifying the mistake is clearly deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming the replacement of “Samsung Guru 1080” by a perfect new set or to rectify and repair the defects of the mobile along with a compensation of Rs.5000/- and litigation cost Rs. 2000/-.

            Notice was served to both the opposite parties but they failed to appear before this Forum and contest the case. So they were set exapartee.

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Evidence consists of affidavit filed by the complainant and documents Ext.A1 and Ext.A2.

            Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the documents placed on record. The complainant averred that he purchased a mobile handset branded “Samsung Guru 1080” on 14/11/09 for Rs.1450/-. Evidencing the said purchase the complainant produced the original cash bill and it is marked as Ext.A1. The complainant further averred that the mobile handset is having one year warranty.   Original warranty card is also produced and it is marked as Ext.A2. On scanning Ext.A2 it is clear that the mobile phones are having one year warranty. The complainant again averred that the mobile phone started showing malfunctioning from the 3^rd month onwards and that the opposite parties failed to repair the said set even after several attempts. As the opposite parties chose not to contest, the averments and the allegations of the complainant against the opposite parties remain unchallenged. If a consumer gets a defective mobile phone on purchase of a brand new item then he will not be satisfied. From the evidence placed on record it is found that the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects caused to the mobile phone. So in our view the opposite parties are liable to compensate the petitioner. Point no.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is allowed.

 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties will jointly and severally replace the damaged “Samsung Guru 1080 mobile phone” with a brand new mobile of the same model or will refund Rs.1450/- along with compensation of Rs.2000/- and litigation cost Rs.1000/- to the complainant.

            This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of April, 2011

 

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

 

Ext.A1-Original cash bill dtd 14/11/09

Ext.A2-Original warranty card

Nil

 

By Order,