BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 04/07/2012
Date of Order : 30/11/2012
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 404/2012
Between
Sunil. K., S/o. Sudhakaran, | :: | Complainant |
Resident of MDRA 20, Opp. Hotel Abhirami, Vazhakkala, Kochi – 682 021. |
| (Party-in-person) |
And
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., | :: | Opposite Parties |
A25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi, Rep. by its Unit Head – 110 044. 2. Branch Manager, Samsung India Electronics, Branch Office, K.P. Vallon Road, Kadavanthra, Kochi – 6. |
| (Op.pty 1 absent)
(Op.pty 2 party- in-person) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The case of the complainant is as follows :-
The complainant was in need of a mobile phone, which can be used as a modem if connected to a laptop. The complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party and as per the direction of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant contacted the customer care support of the 1st opposite party and they recommended SM mobile GTC 3752. Accordingly, the complainant purchased a similar model from Mobile King Basement Floor, Penta Menaka, Kochi on 18-05-2012 at a price of Rs. 4,800/-. But when the mobile was connected to the system, the complainant came to know that the phone manufactured and marketed by the opposite parties did not have the features required by the complainant and assured by the opposite parties. The complainant contacted the opposite parties and as per the direction, the complainant installed a programme, but it was of no use. The complainant came to know that the opposite parties sold such a mobile phone only to defraud the complainant. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the price of the gadget together with compensation of Rs. 6,000/- and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows :-
The mobile model No. GT-3752 will not work as modem as per the specification. The opposite parties never mentioned in the model catalogue, the company website or any advertisement as this model is not supported with this feature. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The service of notice issued against the 1st opposite party has not been completed. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked. Neither oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the 2nd opposite party. Heard the complainant who appeared in person.
4. The points that emanated for consideration are as follows :-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the mobile phone from the 2nd opposite party?
Whether the 2nd opposite party is liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?
5. Point No. i. :- Ext. A1 is the cash receipt issued by Mobile King Penta Menaka, Cochin – 31 dated 18-05-2012 which goes to show that the complainant purchased the mobile handset bearing No. C 3752 at a price of Rs. 4,800/- manufactured by the opposite parties. According to the complainant, as per the recommendation of the opposite parties only he had purchased the mobile handset which can be used as a modem if connected to the laptop. Since the same could not be used in the laptop, the complainant contacted the opposite parties on several occasions evidenced by Ext. A2 showing details of the calls. In spite of repeated contacts, the opposite parties failed to ventilate the grievances highlighted by the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. The 2nd opposite party in their version contended that they have never assured, the complainant regarding usage of the mobile handset purchased by the complainant as a modem. However, nothing is on record to substantiate the same. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the gadget from the 2nd opposite party.
6. Point No. ii. :- Since the primary grievance of the complainant having been adequately redressed by the order to refund the price of the gadget, we think that no order as to compensation and costs of the proceedings are necessarily called for. Rejected hence.
7. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the 2nd opposite party shall refund Rs. 4,800/- being the price of the mobile handset to the complainant with 12% p.a. from the date of this order till realisation. The complainant is directed to return the disputed gadget to the 2nd opposite party simultaneously.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of November 2012.
Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of the invoice dt. 18-05-2012 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of call details |
“ A3 | :: | Copy of the advertisement |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
=========
