Orissa

Rayagada

CC/132/2016

K.Kishoe Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Umasankar Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Self

05 Nov 2016

ORDER

          DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

 

                                                      C.C. Case  No.132/ 2016.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                            President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc.                                   Member

            K.Kishore Kumar,aged about 27 years, S/o K.Someswar Rao,Motilal           Nagar,             Gunupur, Po/Ps Gunupur, Dist. Rayagada, Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ………Complainant

Versus

1. Sri Umasankar Electronics & Gifts, MainRoad,Gunupur-765001,Dist. Rayagada.
2. The Manager, Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industries Estate, New Delhi-110044.                                                                                                                                                                                        ……...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.Ps: Sri K.Ch.Mohapatra & Associate Advocate, Rayagada.

 

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one  Samsung mobile   from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.33,000/- on 07.03.2016 vide Money Receipt No.120   with a warranty period of one year but  after its  purchase the mobile set  was found defective and it could not be used properly for which  the complainant approached the service centre  but  the service centre  failed to remove the above defects   and hence finding no other option  the complainant  approach this forum and prayed to direct the O.ps  to refund the cost of  Rs.33,000/- . and  award compensation for mental agony  and such other relief as the forum deem fit and proper . Hence, this complaint.

                         On being noticed, the O.ps appeared  through their advocate and filed written version inter  alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. It is submitted by the O.Ps that  the case is false ,imaginary, baseless, unfounded, frivolous and concocted  and liable to be dismissed.  There is no cause of action to file this case against the O.ps.  The real fact is that the complainant has purchased the mobile set  on 07.03.16 from the OP 1 for a consideration amount of Rs.33,000/-  with a warranty period of one year and the warranty of the said mobile phone expired on 06.03.2017. The complainant used the mobile set till today  and there is no allegation made before the Ops  regarding any defect  from which it is assumed that there was no defect persisted in the mobile phone of the complainant .If any defect arose in the mobile phone  and not possible to use  then he must be try to remove the defect from  the authorised service centre but not before the dealer  and the manufacturer. There is no manufacturing effect arose in the mobile phone of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service  provided by the Ops  and ence prayed to dismiss the complaint.      

 

                                                                       FINDINGS

                        Heard and perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and we accept the grievance of the complainant. The Complainant  argued that the O.ps have sold a defective  mobile set  to the complainant and claimed that the O.ps caused deficiency in service and deprived of the complainant of enjoyment of the mobile set  since the date of  its purchase  which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

Now we have to see whether there was any negligence of the Ops  in providing  after sale service  to the complainant as alleged ?

 

We perused the documents filed by the complainant.  Since the mobile set found defective after its purchase    and   the complainant  informed the Ops regarding the defect but the  Ops   failed to remove  the defect . At this stage we hold that  if the mobile set  require  servicing since  the date of its purchase, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if the defective mobile set  is sold to the complainant , the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new  one or  remove the defects  and also the   complainant is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss.  In the instant case  as it is appears that the mobile set  which was purchased by the complainant had developed  defects and the O.ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period. It appears that the complainant invested  a substantial amount and purchased the mobile set  with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the article. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of using the mobile set  for such  and the defecates were not removed by the O.ps who  know the defects from time to time from the complainant.

Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet  his mental agony, financial loss. Hence,  it is ordered.

 

                                                ORDER

                        The  opposite parties  are directed to repair  the mobile set   and extend the warranty for another six months  and pay cost of Rs.500/- . Further, we direct the Ops to pay the aforesaid award amount  within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay  interest  @  12%  p.a. on the above awarded amount till  the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 11^th day November,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

            Member                                                                                              President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Xerox copy of  Money Receipt.

 By the Opp.Party: Nil

 

                                                                                                           President