DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
……………………………………….
Presents:-
1. Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
2.Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 12th day of February 2018.
C.C.No. 37 of 2016
Sushil Agrawal, ae-36 years son of Raj Kumar Agrawal, Resident of Shastri Chowk,
Main Road, Kantabanji, P.O/P.S- Kantabanji, Dist- Bolanir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.Sri Rishi Agrawal, Proprietor of Ganesh G Sales, Samsung Smart, Café,
Main Road, Kantabanji, P.O/P.S-Kantabanji, Dist- Bolangir.
3.Samsung India electronics Private Limited,A-25, Ground Floor,
Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.
3.Samsung Mobile authorized Service entrée, Sambalpur Road,
In front of Hotel Pitchu, Gandhinaarpada, P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv. For the complainant- Sri R.K.Mohakur & Associates.
Adv. For the O.Ps -Sri K.C.Mohapatra.
Date of filing of the case – 30.06.2016
Date of order - 12.02.2018
JUDGMENT.
Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
The case of the complainant is that, he had purchased a Samsung E7 mobile phone from the O.P. No.1 for a consideration of Rs.17,500/- on dated 26.7.2015 vide retail invoice no. 264 dt.26.7.2015. The said mobile phone is warranted for a period of one year. During warranty period after use of some days the complainant found defect in the mobile phone. The complainant found there was call dropped and the phone was suddenly disconnected during the time of call. To this the complainant contacted the dealer O.P. 1 who in turn send the mobile phone to the authorized service center O.P. 3 for repairing. But the service center opine that if the mobile phone is repaired then there is chance of damaged to the display, hence the dealer returned the mobile without service. The complainant alleges that the defect in the mobile phone has not been removed by the O.Ps. for which the complainant debarred from its use. Hence the complaint.
2. Although notice has been served on O.P.No. 1 & 3 neither they appears nor have filed their written version. In his written version the O.P.No. 2 has simply denied the case of the complainant and has not come up with any specific case.
3. Heard the complainant. Perused the pleadings and material available on record. In support of his case the complainant has filed the retail invoice, warranty card and affidavit evidence. The O.Ps. have not produced any documentary evidence in support of their case.
4. Perused the retail invoice. It is evident from the retail invoice that the complainant had purchased SAMSUNG E7 mobile phone from the O.P. 1 and paid Rs. 17,500- on dated 26.7.2015. It is also evident from the warranty Card that the said mobile phone is warranted for its repair. It is seen from the affidavit evidence of the complainant that from the very beginning of its purchase the mobile phone was found defective. There was problem with the call and the phone was disconnected at the time of call. Defect as defined in Sec. 2(f) of the C.P.Act is “defect means any fault imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods”. From this definition it is believed that there must be some fault in call of the mobile phone and the same is not free from defect. The O.Ps. have not produce any evidence to show that the mobile phone has been repaired without any defect.
5. During warranty period the O.Ps. are duty bound to provide service to the mobile phone and repaired the same without any fault. But the O.Ps. have failed to provide the same. It is seen from the affidavit evidence of the complainant that, in the event the phone is repaired then there is chance of damaged in the display. Therefore it is believed that the phone is not repairable and there is inherent defects in the mobile phone.
6. Under the aforesaid discussion and material available on record it is concluded that there is inherent defect in the mobile phone and the same is not repairable. Hence refund of price will meet the ends of justice. IN the present day mobile phone is essential for every person and since he has not able to use the mobile phone from the very beginning of its purchase the complainant has sufficiently harassed and is entitled to compensation. Hence ordered.
ORDER
The O.Ps. are directed to refund Rs. 17,500-(seventeen thousands and five hundred) only to the complainant after receipt of the defective mobile from the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Further the O.Ps. are directed to pay Rs. 5000/-(five thousands) towards compensation and Rs. 2000/- (two thousands) towards cost to the complainant within the aforesaid period, failing which the entire amount shall bear an interest @ 10% P.A. till payment.
Accordingly the case is disposed off.
Order pronounced in open forum this the 12th day of February 2018.
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
