Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/84/2014

Subhranta Bhoi S/O- Monoranjan Bhoi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Girihar Bhanjua,Proprietor of M/s.KONARK VIDEO - Opp.Party(s)

B.N.Dutta

28 Jan 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

                                        

                           CONSUMER  COMPLAINT  CASE NO. 84 OF 2014

 

Subhranta Bhoi,

S/O: Manoranjan Bhoi,

R/O: Jamkani, Gumadera,

PO/PS: Belpahar,

Dist- Jharsuguda, Odisha, ………………………………..…..……..………. Complainant.

     

                                           Versus 

 

1. Giridhar Bhanjua,

Propritor of M/S Konark Video,

AT: Main Road,Jharsuguda,

PS/Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.

 

2. Authorised persons of Shree Genesh Enterprises,

(Authorised Servicing Centre of Samsung Mobile),

At: Beheramal Chowk,Jharsuguda,

PS/Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.

 

3. Manufacturer, Samsung India Electronic PVT. Ltd.,

B-1, Sector 81, Phase-2, Noida,

Dist: Goutam Buddha Nagar ( U.P)……………............................. Opp. Parties.

 

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                           Shri B.N.Dutta, Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party No.1, 2 & 3          None (Ex-parte)

 

Date of Order: 28.01.2015

 

Present       

                                                             1. Shri S.L. Behera, President                                                                                                                                                                              2. Shri S.K. Ojha, Sr. Member.

                                                            3. Smt. A. Nanda, Member(W).

                                                                                

Shri S. K. Ojha, Sr. Member: - The complainant’s case in brief is that, he had purchased one Samsung mobile handset (Model No. GTI 8262, Samsung Core) from O.P.No.1 by paying Rs.13,300/- only on dtd. 30.08.2013 having warranty of one year. The said mobile hand set was noticed defects of incoming call problem, net problem and set heat etc. after two months from the date of purchasing, about which the complainant informed to the O.P.No2 (Authorised Service Centre), where the handset was repaired on dtd. 18.04.2014 but from the very next day the problems continued. As per the instruction of Engineer the Mother Board was replaced and soon after from dtd. 24.08.2014 the same problems continued.  The complainant handed over his said mobile handset to the O.P.No.2 for necessary action at their end as there is some inherent defects in the mobile handset, hence this case. 

 

Being noticed, the O.Ps. failed to appear and after being provided sufficient opportunities, they all stand ex-parte ultimately.

 

Heard from the complainant and after perusal of the case record including materials available, it is found that, the complainant had purchased one Samsung Core GT- 18262 mobile handset having IMEI No. 357089051742361, Battery No. AA1D806TS/2-B from the O.P.No.1 on dtd. 30.08.2013 by paying Rs. 13,300/- only with endorsement in the Tax/Retail Invoice bearing No.1463 issued by O.P.No.1 having one year warranty on handsets and six month on battery and charger.  The said mobile handset produced before the O.P.No.2 two times i.e. on dtd. 19.04.2014 and 25.08.2014 and after replacement of Motherboard with some necessary repairing the defect continues as it was. It clearly reflects the inherent defects / manufacturing defects on the said mobile handset.  In contrary, the O.Ps. remained silent in this case, which also reveals that the O.Ps. don’t have to say any thing in this case.

 

As per the above facts and circumstances, the complainant has repaired his said mobile handset two times from the O.P.No.2, which the O.P.No.2 (the authorized service center) has tried its level best to repair the same, but due to manufacturing defects (inherent defects) he could not be able to solve the defects of the mobile. The O.P.No.2 has rightly performed his services towards the complainant, but in this process, neither the O.P.No.1 (Trader) nor the O.P.No.3 (Manufacturer) have taken any necessary step towards complainant. The O.P.No.1 is the ‘Authorized Dealer’ of O.P.No.3 from where the complainant has purchased the said mobile handset. The term ‘Authorized Dealer’ itself reveals that, the O.P.No.1 is authorized enough to deal with the products of the O.P.No.3 or in other words, the O.P No.1 deals the products on behalf of the O.P.No.3, thus, the O.P.No.1 must be answerable if any manufacturing defects (inherent defects) found in the mobile handset.

 

Hence, we are inclined to allow the complaint petition by directing the O.P.No.1 to replace the said mobile handset in question with a new defect free mobile handset of having same brand and of having same purchasing price or return the purchasing price of Rs.13,300/- (Rupees thirteen thousand three hundred) only to the complainant along with pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only towards mental agony, harassment and cost of the case within 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.P.No.1 shall be liable for interest @ 10% per annum on the above mentioned awarded amounts till realization.

 

Accordingly the case is disposed of.

 

Order pronounced in the open court today on this the 28^th   day of January 2015, copy of this order shall be communicated to the parties as per Rule.

 

 

                                                        I Agree.                                         I Agree. 

                                                                                                          

                                        Sd/- A.Nanda, Member (W)        Sd/- S.L.Behera, President       Sd/- S. K. Ojha, Sr.Member         

                                                     Dictated and corrected by me,

 

                                         Sd/- S. K. Ojha, Sr. Member