BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 284/2012 Filed on 22.08.2012
Dated : 31.12.2012
Complainant :
Bipin J Nath, 'Sarovaram', T.C 30/451(1), MGRA.40, Kallummoodu, Anayara P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 029.
(Party in person)
Opposite party:
Samsung Service Centre, Smart Electronics, T.C 28/986(1), SWARA- 46, Sreekanteswaram, Thiruvananthapuram-4.
This O.P having been heard on 10.12.2012, the Forum on 31.12.2012 delivered the following :
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER
Complainant had entrusted one Galaxy Note for servicing with the opposite party during warranty period. But the same was not repaired due to want of spare parts. Even after repeated requests, the same was not repaired saying that parts are not available. Complainant doubts the genuineness of opposite party's submission as the Samsung Galaxy Note is a product with wide publicity and that the shortage of spare parts is not believable. Complainant further cast doubt on the service personnel that they were using his phone for their personal use thereby causing delay. Hence this complaint for refund of price of the phone along with compensation and costs.
Opposite party accepted notice, but remained absent. Hence they were set exprte.
Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 and P2. Opposite party had no evidence.
The issues for consideration are:-
Whether there has been any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the complaint?
Points (i) & (ii):- The tax invoice dated 07.12.2011 which has been marked as Ext. P1 proves the purchase of the Galaxy Note by the complainant for Rs. 33,000/-. Complainant pleads that the same became defective and it was entrusted with the opposite party for repairing. As per Ext. P2 the defect description is “auto charging and ringer complaint WA 10624”. The date of entrustment is 06.06.2012, i.e; within 6 months of its purchase.
It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party neither repaired the phone nor returned it to the complainant and the reason for the delay according to the opposite party was that the spare parts were not available. Complainant has filed this complaint on 22.08.2012. Ext. P3 is the letter issued to the complainant by the opposite party on 03.10.2012 which is after the filing of the complaint. Here, a pertinent aspect to be noted is that, the opposite party never appeared before the Forum after acceptance of notice. They have not filed their version nor denied any allegations levelled against them instead they have sent a letter to the complainant to collect the phone from them. If at all the complainant had delayed to accept the phone, then the opposite party could very well submit the same before the Forum, but they have evaded the same and had sent Ext. P3 letter to the complainant which prima facie shows that the allegations levelled against the opposite party as true and correct. The agony of a consumer who could not use a phone worth Rs. 33,000/- without any defect at least during the warranty period is to be taken into consideration. The opposite parties have not corroborated their reason for delay. As the phone is with the opposite party, proceedings under Sec. 13(1) is not required.
From the above discussions, this Forum is of the view that, the act of the opposite party in not returning the phone in time amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. When a product is manufactured, the delay caused in repairing the same for non-availability of spare parts is not acceptable and such an act amounts to deficiency in service. Opposite party is the authorized service dealer of the Samsung company. In the above circumstance, we find that, as the complainant has lost faith in the product, the complainant is found entitled for refund of the price of the phone along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and costs.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party shall refund Rs. 33,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and costs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31st day of December 2012.
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 284/2012
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
NIL
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of tax invoice for Rs. 33,000/- dated 07.12.2011 issued
by Pioneer Associates.
P2 - Copy of Service Request.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
