IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 24th day of July, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 46/2012 (Filed on 06.03.2012)
Between:
Sandeep Saji,
Saji Bhavanam,
Theppupara P.O.,
Ezhamkulam, Adoor,
Pin – 691 554. … Complainant.
And:
SMG Electronics,
Kulathoor Building,
Melevettippuram,
Pathanamthitta – 689 645. … Opposite party.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum
2. The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a mobile phone manufactured by Samsung India Electronics from Binoy Electricals, Adoor on 19.11.2011 for ` 3,900. After 10 days from the purchase, the said phone became defective. As per the instructions of Binoy Electricals, Adoor, the mobile phone was given to the opposite party on 30.11.2011 who is the authorized service centre of the manufacturer for repairing the phone. They repaired the phone and returned. But even after the said repairs also, the phone became defective after one month. Then also the opposite party repaired and returned the phone by replacing the software. But after one week, the same complaints occurred again to the said phone. At that time, the opposite party collected the phone assuring that they will replace the phone within 15 days. But they have not replaced the phone and told that they required 30 days for replacement. Then the complainant told that he will go to the Consumer Forum for redressing his grievances. At that time, opposite party assured to return the price of the phone within 10 days. But they have not replaced the phone or returned the price of the phone so far. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of the price of the mobile phone along with compensation of ` 25,000 for the mental agony and financial loss sustained to the complainant.
3. Opposite party entered appearance and filed his version with the following contentions: Opposite party admitted the transactions with the complainant. They contended that the complainant is using external memory card to his phone which is the cause of the complaints of the phone. The said complaints were rectified by the opposite party several times. Again the complainant came to the opposite party with the same complaints to the phone and it was given to the opposite party. Thereafter he had not turned up for collecting the phone and it is with them. They are ready to return the phone to the complainant and this complaint is filed on experimental basis for getting a latest model mobile phone from the opposite party. With the above contentions, opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complainant as they have not committed any deficiency in service.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint is allowable or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1, DW1 and Exts. A1 and A2. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
6. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that a mobile phone manufactured by Samsung India Electronics Ltd, purchased by the complainant became defective on several occasions right from the purchase onwards. Opposite party being the authorized service centre of the manufacturer. Complainant had given the phone to the second opposite party for repairs. They have repaired and returned the same for several time. But even after the said repairs also, the phone is not properly working. At last, opposite party collected the phone assuring to replace the set or to refund the price of the mobile phone. But they have not neither replaced the phone nor returned the price of the phone. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and they are liable to the complainant for the same.
7. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1. The complainant also produced 2 documents which are marked as Exts. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is the letter issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant stating that the manufacturer is ready to refund the money spent by the complainant for purchasing the mobile phone with a request to visit the opposite party for collecting the refund money. Ext. A2 is the copy of the bill dated 19.11.2011 issued by Binoy Electricals, Adoor for the sale of the mobile phone to the complainant.
8. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that the complaints of the phone is not due to the manufacturing defect, but it is due to the misuse by the complainant and the manufacturer will replace the phone only in the event of any complaints to the phone for more than 3 times. The phone in question had showed complaint only once. So it is not possible to replace the phone. The offer of replacement of the phone by the manufacturer is on the basis of the policy of the company. Thus, they have not committed any deficiency in service and prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite party, opposite party adduced oral evidence as DW1. There is no documentary evidence from the side of the opposite party.
10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the materials on record and found that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the Samsung India Electronics Ltd. from Binoy Electricals, Adoor. The said phone became defective several time and it was repaired by the opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the manufacturer. Even after the repairs also, the defects of the phone were not rectified and the phone is now with the opposite party. Opposite party collected the phone for replacing the same or for refunding the price of the phone. But the opposite party has not refunded the price of the phone to the complainant in spite of the assurance given by him in Ext. A1. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. Hence, we find that this complaint is allowable.
11. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite party is directed to refund the price of the phone along with compensation of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) and cost of ` 500 (Rupees Five hundred only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount with 10% per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount. However, the opposite party is at liberty to realize the whole amount given by the opposite party to the complainant from the manufacturer.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 24th day of July, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen, (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Sandeep Saji.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of the letter issued by the first opposite party
to the complainant.
A2 : Photocopy of the bill dated 19.11.2011 issued to the
complainant by Binoy Electricals, Adoor.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Sureshkumar.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Sandeep Saji, Saji Bhavanam, Theppupara P.O.,
Ezhamkulam, Adoor, Pin – 691 554. (2) SMG Electronics, Kulathoor Building,
Melevettippuram, Pathanamthitta – 689 645.
(3) The Stock File.
