Orissa

Rayagada

CC/244/2015

Shiak Ammulu Begam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Doordarshan Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Y.S. Rao

03 Mar 2016

ORDER

          DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                                                  C.C. Case  No.244/ 2015.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Smt. Ch.  Nirmala Kumari Raju, LLB,                    Member

Shiak Ammulu Begam, W/o Shgaik Bokhari, Pitla Street, Po/Dist. Rayagada,.

                                                                                                     ………Complainant

Vrs.

 

1.                  Doordarshan Enterprises, House of Electronics and Home Appliances, Beside Overbridge, Rayagada.

2. Manager, Samsung Service Centre, New Colony, Rayagada.

3.                  Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

                                                                                                     ……...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 Galaxy   from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.11,500/- on 02.02.2015 vide Retail Invoice No.36946 with one year warranty    but  after seven days of  its  purchase the mobile set  did not work properly  for which  the complainant informed to the O.p. No.1 and delivered  the same  for repair  but  the O.ps 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 replace the mobile set  or refund the cost of  Rs.11,500/- with 18% interest  and  award compensation for mental agony  and such other relief as the forum deem fit and proper . Hence, this complaint.

                         On being noticed, though   the O.ps appeared through K.C.Mohapatra & Associate Advocate but failed to  file any written version and as the O.ps failed to file written version, the proceeding was set exparte against them.

                        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 replace  the mobile set   and extend the warranty for another six months or  else  refund the cost of the mobile set  i.e. Rs.11,500/-   and pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- for mental agony and  cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. If the Ops fails to comply the above order   within one month from the date of receipt of this order, they 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 18^th  day of November,2015 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  Retail Invoice.
2. Xerox copy of customer details
3. Xerox copy of Aadhar card.

By the Opp.Party: Nil                                                                             President