ORDER

Dr. V. K. DABAS, MEMBER



   In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased a
Samsung Galaxy SII for his son from Rajendera Electronics (OP1)
manufactured by Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd (OP2).  The
complainant had filed a complaint in this forum which was rejected on
the grounds that the manufacturer of the mobile set were not impleaded
in the array of the Ops.  A fresh complaint has been filed by the
complainant on 28.5.2013 and the manufacturer  Samsung India Pvt. Ltd
has been impleaded in the array of Ops.  It is alleged by the
complainant that this mobile handset started giving trouble just after
3 days of its purchase and it used to hang.  It is further alleged by
the complainant that he had visited the service center of OP2 twice
but the mobile handset was returned without removing the defect.  The
complainant had visited the service center and deposit the mobile for
third time on 2-4-2012 and kept Xerox copy of the slip/ service
receipt.    The complainant had allegedly visited Samsung India
Service Center and deposited his mobile for repair and since then the
mobile handset is with them.  It is alleged by the complainant that
despite his visits between 14/4/2012  to 22/4/2012 OP2 never repaired
or replaced the mobile handset.  He had to purchase a new mobile
handset for his son on 22.4.2012. Hence, the complaint.

     OP1 and OP2 have contested the complaint and have filed the
written statement. In the written statement, OP1 has alleged that he
is only a dealer and is not liable for any defects in the mobile sold
by him to the complainant. OP2 in its written statement has stated
that the complainant first visited its service center on 2-4-2012.
OP2 has agreed in its written statement that the complainant had
visited OP2 and had left the mobile for removal of the defect in the
mobile handset on 14-4-2012 but he never came to collect it.  It is
submitted by OP2 that the mobile hand set manufactured by them are
designed and tested for best performance.  It is further submitted by
OP2 that  the problem may occur due to many other reasons such as
environment , usage pattern , external agents and amount  of
applications used.

     The complainant has submitted his evidence by way of affidavit.

     In the evidence the complainant has reiterated the contents of
the complainant.  The complainant has reiterated that on 2-4-2012 he
had visited the service center ofOP2 for the third time for
rectification  of the defect in the mobile set.  The complainant
visited OP2 on 14-4-2012 and 22-4-2012 but to no  avail i.e. he
neither received back the repaired mobile nor the mobile set was
replaced by the OP2.   OP2 has also supported the contents of the
complaint in his evidence by way of affidavit.

     We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

     The complainant has placed on record receipt of purchase of the
mobile dated 10-3-2012 , service request dated 14-4-2012 and 2-4-2012.
Receipt of purchase of his new mobile has also been filed. Since OP1
is only a dealer who had sold the mobile handset to the complainant
and cannot be held liable for defect in the mobile phone. As per case
of the complainant duly supported by affidavit, the mobile set did not
give the required service and started giving trouble within 3 days of
its purchase.  The service center of the manufacturer repaired the
mobile set twice but even then, it did not work properly.  It was
again deposited with service center of the OP for third time.
Thereafter it was not returned back.  The learned counsel for the OP
has forcibly stated that the problem could occur due to various
reasons other than manufacturing defect i.e. environment , usage
pattern, external agents , applications used .  This is not convincing



In R. Sachdev Vs. ICICI Bank, , FA762/06 decided on 29.11.2006  the
Hon’ble State Commission held:-



      “ what is the use of such good or article if it loses its
utility after a period of one month of its purchase . The object of
the Consumer Protection Act, it is safeguard the interests of the
consumers against the unscrupulous manufactures or traders for selling
substandard or defective goods.”



      In another case titled Col. Ravinder Pal Brar Vs. Asian Motors,
FA 73/06 decided on 28.9.2007 , the Hon’ble State Commission held:-



      “ The disputes between the consumer and the service providers
and traders should be ended once for all by calling upon the traders
and manufacturers to refund the cost of the goods with adequate
compensation as the possibility of the new goods also being defective
and not being up to the satisfaction  of the consumers, cannot be
ruled out and in that case parties will  be relegated to square one
and will suffer another bout of litigation.”

In view of the judgment cited by us above and the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that OP2
is guilty of rendering deficiency in service to the complainant and
direct the OP2 as under:

Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 27,500/-as  the cost of the mobile handset.

Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 10,000/-as compensation for the
pain and agony suffered by her.

Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as cost of litigation.

The OP2 shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date
of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on
the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP2 fails to comply
with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution
of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.

   File be consigned to record room.

  Announced in open sitting of the Forumon.....................