DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 7^th day of November 2019

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

                 : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member                 Date of filing: 02/08/2019

                                                  (C.C.No.201/2019)    

K.A.Rajesh,

S/o.T.Manickan(late)

Kizhakke Adanath House,

West Thara, Kuthannur,

Palakkad – 678 721.                                                               -           Complainant

(By Adv.Surendran.P.A) 

Vs

1. The Manager in charge,

    New Mobile Bazar Mobile Sale & Service,

    Sulthanpet Junction,

    Palakkad – 678 001.

2. The Manager in charge,                                                     -           Opposite parties

    M/s.Samsung Service Centre,

    18/746-3, First Floor,

    R.C.Building,  Palakkad – 678 001.

    (By Adv.S.M.Unnikrishnan)

O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R.  President.

Brief facts of complaint.

The complainant had purchased a mobile phone manufactured by M/S. Samsung from the 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs.6,000/- on 05/03/2019 through Flipkart. The mobile has a guarantee of 6 months. The complainant was using the mobile with due care and caution. But within two months the mobile hand set was not functioned. Then he approached 1^st opposite party. As per the direction of 1^st opposite party complainant approached 2^nd opposite party to cure the defects of the mobile.  Allegation of the complainant is that the hand set was not in a position to switch on properly, too much  time needed to switch on and when it  got on, automatically the call was connected to emergency number which was maintained in the nearest police station.  As a result of the call the police called back the customer and it continued. Hence the complainant entrusted the mobile to 2^nd opposite party to cure the defect on 08/06/2019. On 11/06/2019 2^nd opposite party returned the phone stating that all defects were cured. The next day onwards the same complaint was repeated and the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party again. Then they replaced the switch on button and returned to complainant.  The same complaint was repeated even after repair. Hence the complainant takes the phone to the 2^nd opposite party.  At that time they informed the complainant that the mother board of the Phone was to be replaced. In order to replace PBA complainant handed over the phone to 2^nd opposite party. Three days after 2^nd opposite party returned the phone to the complainant stating all defects were cured. Within two hours the same defects were occurred. Hence the complaint. Complainant submitted that due to manufacturing defect of the mobile he could not use the mobile phone properly and the opposite parties had not given proper service too. Complainant further submitted that due to the above act of opposite parties he had suffered a lot of mental agony and financial loss. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay

1. Rs.6,000/- towards cost of mobile
2. Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and emotional distress suffered by the complainant,
3. Rs.3,000/- for financial loss suffered and
4. Rs.5,000/- for cost of litigation

Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite parties. After accepting notices opposite parties did not appear before the Forum. Hence name called absent set ex-parte.

Complainant filed chief affidavits. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked from the side of the complainant. 

The following issues are considered

1.  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief?

Issues 1&2

Heard. We have perused the documents filed by the complainant.

Ext.A1 proves that complainant had purchased Samsung mobile for an amount of Rs.6,000/- on 05/03/2019 from the 1^st opposite party. Ext.A2 shows that the product has the warranty of 6 months. On the perusal of Ext.A3 service record issued by 2^nd opposite party it is revealed that the mobile has the defects of emergency call active and power key was also not in working condition. It is also revealed from Ext.A3 that PBA of mobile was replaced on 08/06/2019 i.e. within three months from the date of purchase. Under the above circumstances, we can conclude that the above said mobile phone showed the problems within three months from the date of purchase. It is evident from the above available documents that the said defects were happened due to the manufacturing defect of the product. As the opposite parties remained ex-parte, the evidence tendered by the complainant stands unchallenged. In the complaint complainant did not specifically mentioned the role of 1^st opposite party. Hence 1^st opposite party is exonerated from the liability. 2^nd opposite party is the service centre of the Samsung mobile company. They cannot wash off their hands by simply saying that they have no liability to pay compensation to the complainant. They have the liability to inform the manufacturer about the defects in the mobile they manufactured as well as the problems of the customers using the phones.  More over they have not given proper service to the complainant.

In the result complaint is partly allowed. 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.6,000/-(Rupees Six  thousand only) being the cost of mobile, Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.

After complying the above order of the Forum 2^nd opposite party has the right to take back the alleged mobile from the complainant.
 

Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which complainant is eligible for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 7^th day of November 2019.

                                                                                                                   Sd/-

              Shiny.P.R.

              President  

       Sd/-          

                                                                                                    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                  Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant.

Ext.A1 – Tax invoice dated 05/03/2019 issued by 1^st opposite party.

Ext.A2 - Warranty card issued by 1^st opposite party.

Ext.A3 – Acknowledgement of Service Request issued by 2^nd opposite party.

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

NIL

Witness examined on the side of complainant

NIL

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

NIL

Cost:    Rs.1,000/-