BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 295/2014 Filed on 30.07.2014

ORDER DATED: 18.05.2015

Complainant:

Aswathy Kutty. U.S, Kamala Nivas, T.C 23/1085, Valiyasala, Chalai P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 036.

 

                                 (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (HO), 2^nd, 3^rd 4^th Floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon Sector-43, Gurgaon-122 002.

2. Mobik Lab, Shop No. 217, 1^st Floor, Annas Arcade, Shopping Complex, Spencer Junction, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram-1.

This case having been heard on 24.03.2015, the Forum on 18.05.2015 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. P. SUDHIR:  PRESIDENT

Complainant’s case is that on 03.08.2013 complainant requested for Samsung Galaxy S Advance 19070 (Metallic Black) IMEI/Serial No. 353019050851263 of 1^st opposite party company for an amount of Rs. 12,550/- through ‘FLIPKART’.  Complainant opted this mobile because the software used in this type of mobile is Jelly Bean.  There arise defects in the mobile such as non-functioning of video, photo and phone get automatically switched off and complainant has to restart the mobile.  After a span of 5 months of purchase on 02.01.2015 complainant approached the service centre for repair and fresh software was installed.  For effective use complainant purchased 8 GB Toshiba memory card.  The above defects arise subsequently.  After 7 months of purchase complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party on 06.03.2014 and 2^nd opposite party inspected and found that the defect is of motherboard.  Due to defective motherboard the battery will also be affected.  2^nd opposite party rectified the defect by changing the motherboard.  Again the same defect arise.  2^nd opposite party again find solution and 2^nd opposite party find fault with the memory card.  Complainant purchased 8 GB SanDisk memory card and complainant experienced the same defect.  Complainant again approached the 2^nd opposite party and show the defects.  Complainant is facing by the help of video and photos.  But 2^nd opposite party failed to point out the problem and 2^nd opposite party given back the phone to complainant and informed that the battery is bulged.  Complainant purchased new original battery of Samsung Company.  Complainant lost faith in the mobile and she approached this Forum for the redressal of her grievances for the relief of reimbursement of money or replacing of mobile with same model phone and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony from the company, that is 1^st opposite party. 

Notice sent to opposite parties.  Opposite parties accepted notice and not filed version and opposite parties set exparte.  Complainant filed chief examination of affidavit and Exts. P1 to P3 marked. 

Issues:-

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

2. What is the order as to compensation and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- Perusing the evidence and documents marked it is seen that complainant has purchased a mobile for Rs. 12,550/- as per Ext. P1 and Ext. P2 shows that there is one year manufacturer warranty for phone and 6 months for in the box accessories.  Ext. P3 shows that complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for repair.  Since the opposite parties are set exparte we have no other go but to go along with the evidence produced by the complainant.  It is seen that there is some manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified by the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of 1^st opposite party.  As per Ext. P3 the date of purchase is shown as 12.02.2014 and the manufacturing defect occurred within one year that is within the warranty period.  Hence we are of the opinion that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party.  2^nd opposite party is exonerated from liability.  So the 1^st opposite party is directed to replace the complainant with same model mobile phone as mentioned in Ext. P1 within one month from the date of order and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 2,000/- as costs of these proceedings.  If 1^st opposite party failed to replace the mobile within one month, 1^st opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 12,550/- to complainant as cost of the mobile apart from the compensation and costs ordered. 

In the result, complaint is allowed.  1^st opposite party is liable to replace the mobile of complainant with same model within one month from the date of order and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 2,000/- as costs of this proceedings.  If 1^st opposite party failed to replace the mobile within one month from the date of order complainant is entitled for reimbursement of Rs. 12,550/- that is the cost of the mobile with 9% interest from the date of order apart from the compensation and costs ordered. 

 

 

 

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 18^th day of May 2015.

 

         Sd/-

P.SUDHIR                             : PRESIDENT

 

         Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

 

          Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

 

 

jb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.C. No. 295/2014

APPENDIX

 

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Tax invoice #BLR-WFLD 20130800044167 dated 03.08.2013.

P2     - Copy of warranty of Samsung Galaxy S advance 19070.

P3     - Copy of service request dated 27.05.2014.

 

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

 

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

 

jb