BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 22/2015 Filed on 22/01/2015
Dated: 15..10..2015
Complainant:
Ravikrishnan. N.R., Advocate, 101# N.S.P Nagar, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.
(Party in person)
Opposite parties:
M/s. Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, B1, Sector 81, Phase 2, Noida District, Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
This C.C having been heard on 30..09..2015, the Forum on 15..10..2015 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:
The complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the opposite party on 21/12/2013 by paying an amount of Rs. 7,739/-. As per the description, the mobile phone purchased was one which provides 3G connectivity. After the purchase, the complainant used the same for a few months. But within this period itself it began to malfunction. The following were the malfunction found in the same:
1) Automatic switch off of the phone.
2) The screen becomes red and will not be able to switch off (On such occasion battery is to be removed to switch off the phone)
3) Unable to attend calls as the touch screen facility will not work.
4) The speaker and microphone will not work properly and hence nothing will be heard.
5) The ‘3G’ will not work
6) Memory card could not be read.
As these problems were found, the complainant approached the authorised service centre at Kaithamukku, Thiruvananthapuram. The service personal enquired whether the phone is within warranty period and as the phone was within warranty period, he took it inside his workshop and after some time returned the phone saying that the defects were rectified. The complainant found that almost all applications installed in the device were missing including the contacts stored in the phone. The complainant again installed the applications and lawbooks which were erased from his phone by the service personnel. The 3G facility worked nearly for one month, but thereafter all these shortcomings again occurred. Now all the shortcomings described in the 2nd para is present in the phone. The complainant understood that the phone is having serious manufacturing defects and that is why it is malfunctioning. In the said circumstances the complainant is not able to use the phone properly even though the same was purchased by spending such a huge sum. Now the complainant is unable to use the applications as well. So the complainant is entitled to get a refund of Rs. 7,739/- with 6% interest from the date of purchase. Hence this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party, though they accepted notice, they never appeared or contested the complaint. So we proceeded exparte against them.
Points raised:
i) Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint is proved?
ii) Reliefs and costs if any?
3. Points (i) & (ii): Complainant filed chief affidavit along with the copy of the purchase bill which was marked as Ext. P1. The affidavit stands uncontroverted. Since the opposite party is not contesting the case, no expert evidence is taken. We are allowing the complaint since the allegation put forwarded by the complainant stands unchallenged. Complainant is eligible for refund of the purchase amount along with compensation, since he was denied the purpose for which he purchased the mobile handset.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 7,739/- within 2 months of receipt of this order. Rs. 2500/- is ordered as compensation. Considering the circumstance of the complaint, no cost is ordered. If this amount is not paid within 2 months, 9% interest is ordered on the entire amount (Rs.7,739 + Rs. 2,500) till the date of realization.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15th day of October, 2015.
Sd/-LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/- R. SATHI : MEMBER
Ad.
C.C.No: 22/2015
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness : N I L
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Tax / Retail invoice No. 007DA3/13-14/10551 dated 21/12/2013
III. Opposite party’s witness : N I L
IV. Opposite party’s documents : N I L
Sd/-PRESIDENT
Ad.
