ORDER

Per V. K. DABAS, MEMBER

Page1. Order CC/285/2013

In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased  a “Samsung Galaxy Ace” mobile handset manufactured by OP1 model GT-55830 from OP2 vide bill number 11814 book number 237 on 2.11.2012 for Rs. 9600/-.  It is alleged that the handset started giving problems after 2 and half months of its purchase i.e. it started disconnecting incoming and outgoing calls automatically.  The complainant visited OP3, the authorized service station of OP1 and deposited the handset with it on 6.3.2013. The handset was returned to the complainant after repairs but the same complaint faced again after two days. The complainant again deposited the handset with OP3 which was returned back after two days but the same problem surfaced again.  The complainant once again deposited the handset with OP3 but this time when it received the handset and inserted the SIM the mobile handset was totally hanged lastly on 23.3.2015 the handset was deposited with OP3 for repair and is still lying with the service center.  The complainant alleged that this forced him to buy a new mobile handset.  Hence , the complainant approached this forum for redressal of his grievances.

     OP1 and OP3 had contested the case and have filed their joint written statement. The OPhad claimed that the complaint is false and frivolous, there is no cause of action and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. OP3 admitted that the complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile Phone Galaxy Ace on 2-12-2012 for Rs. 9600/-. The Ops had claimed that the defect in the mobile phone arose due to the negligence on the part of the complainant. The Ops have stated that the complainant visited the authorized dealer of the Op and the problem was rectified to

Page2. Order CC/285/2013

the satisfaction of the complainant. The ops have denied that they forced the complainant to buy a new mobile phone.

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

     In the evidence the complainant had supported the contents of the complaint. The complainant has placed on record copy of the invoice , copy of the jobsheet and copy of e-mails exchanged between the parties dated 6.3.2013, 8.3.2013 ,15.3.2013, 26.3.2013 and 3.4.2013.  The copies of the job sheet and emails reveal that the mobile phone was not working properly and the calls were disconnecting automatically.

     The Ops have not rebutted the above evidence led by the complainant.  There is sufficient evidence on record that a mobile handsetwhichwere under warranty had not worked properly even after a few months of its purchase.  It was taken to the authorized service center of the Ops but could not be repaired and is still lying with the customer care center of OP3. It appears that the mobile handset supplied to the complainant was having an inherent defect.

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:-

Page 3. Order CC/285/2013

      “ 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 above we hold the OP deficient in rendering the services to the complainant.  We, therefore, direct the Ops as under:

1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 9600/- along with interest @ 10 % from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 7.11.2013 till payment.

2.Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5000/-as compensation for pain and agony suffered by him.

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

The OPs 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 OPs fail 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 Forum on.....................