Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/489/2015

Gurudev R Hiremath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S K Patil

03 Feb 2017

ORDER

                 

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.489/2015

 

                       Date of filing: 05/10/2015

 

                                                                                                                 Date of disposal:03/02/2017

 

P R E S E N T :-

 

	(1)	Shri. A.G.Maldar, B.Com,LL.B. (Spl.) President.
	(2)	Smt.J.S. Kajagar, B.Sc. LLB. (Spl.)  Lady Member.

 

 

COMPLAINANT        -

Mr.Gurudev R. Hiremath, Age: 51 Years, Occ: Govt. Service, R/o: 601, Math Galli, Kanbargi, Tq: & Dist. Belgavi.                                  (Rep. by Sri.S.K.Patil, Adv.)

 

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES  -

1.           2.               3.

M/s. Samsung India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-Op Industrial Estate, New Delhi.                            (Rep. by Sri.K.V.Badige, Adv.)   The Proprietor, Authorized Samsung Service Centre, M/s. Cosmic Telecom, Shop No.8, Cantonment Shopping Complex, Belagavi -01.                         The Proprietor, M/s. Chonnad Company, Keshav Krupa Palace, CTS No.16, RPD Cross, Tilakwadi, Khanapur Road, Belagavi -06.                                       (Op.No.2 & 3 Ex-parte)

JUDGEMENT

 

By  Smt. J.S. Kajagar, Lady Member.

 

 

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “Ops”) claiming repair the Mobile Handset for free of cost or replace the mobile handset cost of Rs.55,193/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 24.12.2014 till realization alsongwith cost of the proceedings.

 

 

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

 

 

          It is case of the complainant that, the complainant has purchased Samsung Mobile Handset Model N 910 G-Note-4 from the Op.No.3 on 24.12.2014 for Rs.55,193/- manufactured by OP.No.1 and it was warranty for the period of 1 Year i.e. upto 24.12.2015 and further the said mobile hand set give serious trouble and the whole product was not operational with the comprehensive warranty period and the same was reported to Op.No.2 who in turn directed the complainant to deposit the product for service and repair and further the defective Mobile Handset was deposited with the OP.No.2 on 02.09.2015 and the defect explained, a job order sheet, bearing No.4200529775 was issued and further the defect had reoccurred again after just one day of repair previously.

 

          It is further complainant contended that, the Op.No.2 informed that, the Mobile Handset needed certain spare parts and the said handset collect after 7 days and further as per the assurance of Op.No.2 the complainant wait for one week then approached the Op.No.2 and asked for delivery of his mobile, but Op.No.2 postponing the repair and delivery of the handset, it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The complainant has visited the Op.No.2 on several occasions but without any results till today and further the complainant is a Govt. Railway Employee and put to extreme hardship for the non-availability of the handset which is of utmost importance in day today present life. Therefore, the complainant has suffered heavy loss and damage and sustained mental agony. Hence, the complainant has constrained to file this complaint.

 

3.      After receipt of said notice, the OP.No.1 appeared through his counsel and resisted the claim of the complainant and Op. No.2 & 3 notices were duly served. But, the Op.No.2 & 3 have not appeared. Hence, Op.No.2 & 3 are placed ex-parte and the Op.No.1 denied all allegations made out in the complaint about deficiency in service in not delivering the device within reasonable time and further the Op.No.1 submitted that, the complainant has failed to turn up to collect his device from the service centre how deficiency in service will occur due to his negligent act is not explained and further the OP.No.1 submitted that, when the device is repaired and kept ready for delivery how the complainant is entitled for replacement of new device or refund of device cost is not explained and further the device is used for personal use as per self statement of the complainant and not for commercial purpose. When such being the case on what ground the complainant is seeking interest on device amount from particular date is not explained. Hence, the Op.No.1 has prayed for dismissed the complaint.

 

 

4.      Both parties have filed their affidavit in support of their case, and on behalf of complainant has produced 5 documents,  for sake of our convenience we have marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5. On behalf of the Op.No.1 has not filed any document. The adv. for both sides have filed their written argument and heard the argument of both sides.            

 

Now, on the basis of these facts, the following points are arise for our consideration:

 

01. Whether the complainant has proved that, there is negligent and deficiency of service on the part of Ops for not replace the Mobile handset or refund the cost?

 

02.What order?

 

5.      Answer to the above Points:-

 

01. Partly Affirmative.

 

02. As per final Order.

 

 

R E A S O N S:-

 

6.      Point No.1: After perusing the evidence of both parties and scanning the written arguments, it is evident and admitted fact that, the complainant has purchased the Samsung Mobile Handset on 24.12.2014 for Rs.55,193/- bearing Model No.910 G-Note-4 and serial No.355306067505299 in this respect the complainant has produced tax invoice No.IN01334 which is marked as Ex.P-1, which is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, the complainant is a consumer as is defined under the provisions of the C.P. Act 1986.

 

The case of the complainant that, on the date of purchase the said mobile handset found defective and number of times the complainant has approached the Op.No.2, one or the other pretext the Op.No.2 postpone the repair and delivery of the said handset and even the OP.No.2 is not deliver the said handset. Therefore, when the complainant approached to the OPs requested to return the mobile handset or replace the cost of the handset. For that contention to prove that, the complainant has filed affidavit alongwith supporting document i.e. Service Request which is marked as Ex.P-2. It is evident that, the complainant has given handset for repairs, but, the complainant has failed to substantiate that, the OPs did not give after repair though, the complainant has approached to the Op.No.2 for that version, there is no single document to show that, the complainant has approached and request to OP.No.2 to give the handset as alleged in the complainat and even the complainant has not attempt to approach or issue any notice or legal notice. Therefore, in our consider view that, the attitude of the complainant shows that, he has not approached to the Op.No.2 for taking the mobile handset. Under such circumstances, the said acts of the OP.No.2 is not negligent. However, the duty of the OP.No.2 after repair, the Op.No.2 as to intimate and return the mobile handset to the complainant, but in the instant case he did not done. Therefore, both have negligent acts in respect of services.    

 

Further case of the complainant that, meanwhile the complainant has purchased another mobile handset, this fact is  proved by producing purchase invoice which is marked as Ex.P-5. We have gone through the pleadings of the Op.No.1 in written version contended that, when the device is repaired and kept ready for delivery how the complainant is entitled for replacement of new device or refund of device cost. For that proposition, the complainant has failed to show that, he is entitled for replacement of new device or refund of the device cost. In our opinion that, the complainant could have approached the Op.No.2 and get repaired mobile handset, he might have not purchase the another mobile handset for is daily necessity purpose. But, in this case neither approach nor issued any legal notice to the OPs for the same, just for his purpose so moto purchase the new handset mobile does it mean that, the OPs are not given within stipulated time from the date of hand over the handset for repair and  it is not the case of the complainant that, several time approached to the Op.No.2 and requested to return the mobile handset. Therefore, the purchasing of new handset is not a mistake of OPs, it is own wish and willing to purchase of new handset. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for replacement of new device or refund of device cost. When, the handset is repairable and also the said handset has been repaired by the Op.No.2.

 

It is bounded duty of the OP.No.2 to inform about the defect of handset if any to complainant and mere stating that, the complainant has not approached and take the said handset from the Op.No.2 is not sufficient to hold that, the OP.No.2 has discharge his duty towards complainant. Moreover, the complainant partly proved his case towards handset given for repairs and purchased a new handset by producing the documents such as the Job sheet issued by the OPs and purchase bill, since from beginning when the complainant given handset for repair purpose, the Op.No.2 did not return the said hand set after repair  to some extent, which  prima-facia shows that, the OP.No.2 sold hand set was in defective in respect of not working properly since from beginning itself.  Therefore in our considered opinion that, the OP.No.2 failed to prove that, there is no problem in the mobile handset or defect in the said hand set and the complainant proved his case that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.No.2 in supplying defective handset, due to which the complainant suffered lot of mental agony and hardship. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be proper, directed to repair/rectified the problem of the mobile handset of the complainant or if the said mobile handset not repair/rectified, replace with the new mobile handset of same version if required and also issue the fresh warranty from the date of repair of the said hand set and further we directed to Op.No.1 & 2 are to pay the compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and  litigation expenses. Hence, we answer to the above point No 1 in affirmative.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

 

O R D E R

 

   For the reasons discussed above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is partly allowed.

 

The OPs jointly and severally are directed to repair/rectified the problem of the mobile handset of the complainant or if the said mobile handset not repair/rectified, replace with the new mobile handset of same version if required and also issue the fresh warranty from the date of repair of the said hand set.

  

The OPs jointly and severally are directed to pay Rs.5,000/-towards mental agony and  costs of the proceedings.

 

The OPs jointly and severally granted 10 weeks to comply this order, falling which the complainant shall entitle to get interest @ 6% p.a. on cost of the mobile from the complaint till realization.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

 

           

(This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this 03^rd day of February, 2017).

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt. J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.