IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 332/09 DATED 28.10.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Vimla Jain, S/o Prakash Chand Jain, Vardhaman Medicals Mig No.1, New Kantharaj Urs Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysore-570023.<br /> <br /> (INPERSON)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party M.Amaresha,<br /> Tejas Service Samsung Service Centre, 509/2, bk street, Devaraj Mohalla, Mysore-24.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. M.K.B., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 03.09.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 24.09.2009<br /> Date of order : 28.10.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 4 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint, seeking a direction to the opposite party for servicing the mobile phone or replace it with new one or refund the cost.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint, it is alleged that, the complainant purchased Samsung F270 mobile handset from Royal Marketing on 20.11.2008 for Rs.8,700/-. The handset had software and message problem. It was communicated to opposite party. Thrice the handset was given to opposite party from time to time for repairs. Though, the representative of the company by name Mr.Raghavendra assured to rectify the mistake, nothing has been done and now, it is told that the handset is beyond repairable condition and opposite party has retained the handset. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. Purchase of the handset by the complainant from Royal Marketing is admitted. But, defects alleged by the complainant in the handset is denied. It is contended that, on 27.06.2009, the handset was given back to the complainant in good condition. The complainant again came back with certain problems, but in fact, the handset had no defects. The complainant left the mobile with the opposite party to harass. Other allegations are denied. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In support of their respective contentions, both parties have filed their affidavit. For both parties written arguments are filed. We have perused the entire material on record.<br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in respect of the mobile handset in question and that he is entitled to any reliefs?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> REASONS<br /> 7. Point no. 1:- Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the mobile handset from the Royal Marketing for Rs.8,700/- on 20.11.2008. It is alleged by the complainant that, thereafter, the handset had software and message problem and hence, he approached the opposite party in all thrice, but ultimately, it is found beyond repairs. Otherwise, the opposite party could have repaired it and returned to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 8. Though, the opposite party denied and disputed the claim of the complainant, at the end of paragraph 5 of the version, has stated that, the complainant himself left the mobile handset with opposite party to harass the representatives. The complainant having purchased handset, paying Rs.8,700/-, may not leave it with the opposite party, if really it had no defect or problem. No prudent man having purchased mobile handset for personal use paying thousands of rupees, will leave with the service centre without reason. Under the circumstances, the said contention of the opposite party, cannot be believed. On the other hand, the case put forth by the complainant that, because said handset had problem or defects, it was left with the opposite party service centre for repairs, has to be believed. But for the best known reasons, the opposite party has not attended to the problems or defects and they retainted the handset. It is alleged by the complainant that, the opposite party did not attend the problem with hand, because it is beyond repairs. Under the circumstances, that contention of the complainant, cannot be brushed aside.<br /> 9. Hence, considering the facts and the material on record, the opposite party is under an obligation to repair the handset in question and return the same to the complainant. If the handset is not repairable, then the opposite party to replace it to new one with same features. <br /> 10. Accordingly we answer the point partly in affirmative.<br /> 11. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to repair the mobile handset in question in good working condition to the satisfaction of the complainant and for any reason, it cannot be repaired, then replace it with new handset having same or similar features to the complainant, within a month from the date of this order.<br /> 3. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards cost of this proceedings.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 28th October 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />