ORDER Date: -03-2017
Manju Bala Sharma, Member
Instant complaint has been filed by complainant on 25.08.2015 against the OPs stating therein that he had purchased a tablet make Samsung on 15.11.2014 for a sum of Rs. 35,500/-. The said tablet had heating problem and when he had visited the authroised service centre of OP 2 to rectify the defect in the said tablet on 02.07.2015 and 13.07.2015 the tablet could not be rectified. Pleading deficiency in services on the part of OPs the complainant prayed that OPs be directed to apologize for the inconvenience caused to him and to refund the cost of handset and to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards physical strain and mental agony along with Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost.
Notice was issued to OPs who entered appearance and filed their reply. In reply OP 1 stated that he is a dealer and on receipt of the complaint from Complainant he sent the same to OP 2, the manufacturing Company. OP 1 denied rest of the allegation and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
OP 2 in its reply has stated that complainant has purchased the Samsung Tab on 15/11/2014 for a sum of Rs. 35,500/- from OP 1 in good condition. OP 2 further stated that it is not liable to compensate the complainant because the product (tablet) in question was working properly after updation of the software done by the service center and denied any manufacturing defect. OP2 also denied that there was any hardware problem in the said product. OP 2 denied rest of the allegations and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
In rejoinder the complainant reiterated the facts stated in the complaint and denied averments taken by the OPs by way of their written statements. Affidavit of evidence has been filed by both the parties in support of their respective case. In support of his complaint complainant has filed copy of delivery note dated 15/11/2014 of OP 1 and copy of service job sheet dated 02/07/2015.
OP 1 has not filed affidavit of evidence in support of its reply. OP 2 has filed affidavit of Anindya Bose, AR of OP 2 without filing any document in support of the reply.
We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. We have also gone through the written arguments
filed by the complainant and counsel for OP 2. The points to be considered are as under :
- Whether complainant is a consumer?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Relief?
OP 1 has admitted the purchase of Samsung Tab by the complainant on 15-11-2014 hence complainant is a consumer.
It is argued by the complainant that as the Samsung tab was having heating up problem, he visited the authorized service centre of OP 2 on 02/07/2015 and on 13/07/2015 but the problem of heating up could not be rectified by the service centre of OP 2. In support his contention complainant has placed on record the job sheet issued by the service centre of OP 2 in which heat up problem is mentioned.
It is contended by the counsel of OP 2 that the product in question was working properly and only the software update was done by the service centre and as per the service center the product had no manufacturing defect. It is further contended that there was no hardware problem in the said product. Counsel for OP has not placed on record any document in proof the above contentions.
Counsel for OP 2 has also contended that the job sheet dated 02/07/2015 is not issued by the Service Centre of OP 2. OP 2 has not taken this plea in its written statement and contention raised beyond the pleadings cannot be considered at the time of argument. Complainant has contended that after three months of the purchase of the Samsung tab in question there was problem in the product and he approached the service centre who asked them to restart the tab and the problem of hanging will go away and in this way he spent 06 - 07 month in restarting the Samsung Tab on the advice of Service Centre of OP 2 but he has not filed any document in proof of the above contention
From the above discussion we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP 2. Complainant has purchased the Samsung tab on 15/11/2014 and as per the job sheet filed by complainant he visited the service centre on 02/07/15 for the first time. From the above facts an inference can be drawn that the complainant has used the Samsung tab worked properly from 15/11/2014 to 01/07/2015. Considering the fact that complainant has used the Samsung Tab for about 7 ½ months, we are of the considered opinion that OP 2 is liable to refund Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant toward the cost of Samsung Tab Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest @ 10% shall be payable on the entire above mentioned amount till realisation. Copy of this order is sent to all the parties free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced on this ………..
