BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KAMRUP, GUWAHATI

C.C.No- 11/2015

Present:                                                                         

1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S.  -   President

2)Sri U.N.Deka                         -   Member

 Sri Sarbananda Bora

 S/o-Late Birendra Nath Bora,

 Resident of  Near Anath Sishu Kalyan Sadan

 Manikpur Path, Sishu Kalyan, Sundarbori,

 Jalukbari , Guwahati-14

 Dist-Kamrup (M), Assam                           -  Petitioner

                                                  -Vs-

1. The Director,

Samsung Customer Satisfaction ,

2^nd  Floor, Tower C Vipul Tech Square 43 ,

Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana.

 2. The Regional Officer

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

2R Tech Park, Nirlon Complex, Next to Hub Mall

Off Western Express Highway,

Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063                                                             

3. Bir Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Bora Service Petrol Pump Building ,

Ground Floor, G.S. Road., Guwahati-7                 -  Opp. party

Appearance:

The Complainant himself conducted his case.

Date of exparte argument-20.07.16

Date of exparte judgment-29.07.16

EXPARTE JUDGMENT

This is a case u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986

1. The complaint filed by Sri Sarbananda Bora was admitted on 18-2-2015 and notices were served on all opposite parties but they have been found absent and accordingly the case against the opposite parties is proceeding on exparte vide this forum order dtd.29-1-2016. The complainant files his affidavit on 18-5-2016 and also files his written argument on 20-7-2016 and on that very date we have also heard his oral argument. We dispose of the complaint as below:
2. The complainant had purchased one SAMSUNG -S- 7562 mobile handset from M/S Biraj Enterprise , Maligaon , a retail outlet of SAMSUNG  mobile phone on 7-9-2013 at Rs.9,800/- with one year warranty and while he has been using the said handset , then on 1^st week of July,2014 ,the said handset showed problem in opening it and then he immediately went to O.P. NO-3 ,  Bir Electronics Pvt. Ltd. , the authorised service centre of SAMSUNG mobile and they repaired his handset as per terms of warranty and delivered it to him on 9-7-2014 but he had to pay only the labour charge ; and thereafter the handsaet again showed problem in the month of August, 2014 and he approached O.P.NO-3 for repairing of it,but O.P. NO-3 gave him an estimate of repairing to the tune of Rs.3,099/-  although the handset was within the warranty period and being dissatisfied with that act of O.P. No-3 , on 27-8-2014 ventilated his grievances to O.P.No-1 , but that was not considered by O.P. No-1 and he also sent reminders to O.P.No-1 on 7-10-2014 and on 2-1-2015 but O.P.No-1  has not considered his reminders nor communicated any information to him and in result, he became unable to use the said handset and accordingly he prays for directing the opposite party  to repair / replace the said mobile handset and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
3. After perusing the evidence of the complainant, it transpires to us that he purchased a SAMSUNG-S-7562 mobile handset from M/S Biraj Enterprise , Maligaon, the retail outlet of SAMSUNG mobile phone on  7-9-2013 at a price of Rs.9,800/- vide Cash Memo Ext-1and from Ext-2, the Warranty Card , it appears to us that the warranty period is for one year meaning thereby the warranty period is with effect from 9-7-2014 to 9-7-2015.

               From the evidence of the complainant it is seen that for the first time his mobile handset showed problem in opening it and he immediately handed over the said handset to O.P. No-3 , the authorised service centre of O.P.  No-2 (SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD.) and O.P.No-3 also repaired the said handset after taking a charge of Rs. 377/- ,although, within warranty period the said mobile handset showed defects ; and secondly , the said handset again showed problem in opening it  in the month of 2014 i.e. within warranty period and he again went to O.P.No- 3 for repairing of the same, but O.P.No- 3 gave him an estimate of repairing charge to the tune of Rs.3,099/-(Ext-4) . From the evidence of the complainant, it is seen that while opp. party no-3 refused to repair the said handset free of charge rather gave him an estimate of repairing charge to the tune of Rs.3,099/- , he immediately vide letter dtd.27-8-2014(Ext-5) sent representation  to O.P. No-1 but the later did not take any step and then he vide letter dtd.07-10-2014 and 02-01-2015 (Ext.-6 & 7) sent reminders to the o.P.No-1 asking him to direct to repair the mobile handset with only labour cost, but O.P. No-1 after receiving both the reminders had not taken any step to meet up the grievances of the complainant. The mobile handset , as appears from theevidence , is in the hand of the complainant without any use. As the O.P. No-2 being the manufacturer as well as O.P. No-1 being the Customer Satisfaction Cell and O.P. No-3 being the Authorised Service Centre of O.P.No-1 have failed to get the mobile handset repaired with free of cost although the defect in it found within warranty period and which is also manufacturing defect. Therefore, we hold that this act of refusing to repair the handset of the complainant free of cost by the opposite parties is a clean case of deficiency of service on their parts towards the complainant and in result  all of them are jointly liable to return the cost price of the said mobile that is Rs.9800/- to the complainant after receiving the handset from him. Secondly, we are also of opinion that they are also liable to pay atleast Rs.3000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing harassment to him as well as Rs.3000/- as cost of the proceeding.

4. Because of what has been discussed as above, the complaint against all the opposite parties is allowed on exparte and they are directed to refund cost price of the said handset Rs.9,800/- to the complainant to which they are jointly and severally liable after taking back the handset from the complainant along with an interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the complaint (18-2-2015) and also to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation as well as Rs.3,000/- as cost of proceeding . They are directed to pay the complainant the awarded amount within 3 months, in default of which the other two amounts shall also carry interest in the same rate.

Given under our hands and seal of this forum on this day 29^th July,2016.

      Free copies of judgment be delivered to the parties.

                                                                              (Md.S.Hussain)

                                                                                   President

                                                                               (Mr.U.N.Deka)

                                                                                    Member