West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/139/2014

Partha De. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Samsung Customer Service - Opp.Party(s)

10 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.139/2014                                                                                             Date of disposal: 10/03/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. Chakraborty,  Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr. M. Guha, Advocate.                                   

          

 Partha De, S/o Late Ashok Kumar De, at Palliskee (Station Road), P.O.&P.S Medinipur, Dist.

 Paschim Medinipur, PIN.721101, West Bengal (India)…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1)The Manager, Samsung Customer Service, A.25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co.operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi.110044, India.

2)The Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A.25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co.operative Industrial Estate, New delhi.110044, India.

3)The Manager, Samsung Service Centre, Dolphin Lodge, Keranitola (Station Road), P.O. Medinipur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, PIN.721101, West Bengal (India)

4)Suhas Majumder, Prop. Of Mobile Plaza, BE.112, Keranitola (Station Road), P.O. Medinipur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, PIN.721101, West Bengal (India)..……………Ops.

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member.

          Complainant is present.  Today is fixed for ex parte hearing.  Hd. the Ld. Advocate and

perused the documents.  It appears from the record that the Op is avoiding his appearance despite having received the notice in due time.  Thus, there exists strong reason to believe that the OP is willfully avoiding his appearance in this case. Ld. Advocate for the complainant filed relevant documents on the point of service of notice.  In view of the present circumstances and the material on records there are no options but to hear the case ex parte.

          Accordingly the case is heard and considered.  The case of the complainant in a nut

 shell is that the complainant had purchased a smart mobile handset Samsung Galaxy 55 at the consideration of Rs.51,000/- on 13/04/2014 from the OP party No.4,  party Nos.1,2&3 are the

company and manufacturer.  The Op parties issued warranty card in respect of the mobile in question in favour of the complainant.

Contd…………………P/2

- ( 2 ) -

 

         That since after purchase the schedule mobile it has been found by the complainant

that there is manufactural defect at the time of charging the mobile set becoming extreme hot.  The most of the times the mobile set become having and display function was totally stop.

         The complainant reported to the Samsung Service Centre in different details such as

16/04/2014, 13/05/2014, 10/06/2014 and lastly on 19/08/2014.

          That it has been found that there is manufactural defect in the mobile and the OP parties

did not able to repair the same though it is within warranty period.  The complainant requested the OPs to replace the scheduled smart mobile handset but the Ops did not pay any need to the request of the complainant.

         That the complainant thereafter send notice to the Opposite parties through his Ld.

Advocate on 12/09/2014 by registered post with A/D.  But though received the notice the opposite party did not respond till the filing of this case.

         Being aggrieved the complainant has come before us with a prayer to replacing the

scheduled mobile hand set with compensation as the opposite parties have picked up unfair trade practice.

              In this connection some documents namely

1)Xerox Copy of letter of the Ld. Lawyer to the Manager Samsung Customer Service and copy to others.

2)Xerox Copy of cash memo of mobile plaza.

3)Xerox Copy of post office delivery letter.

4)Xerox Copy of warranty card.

5)      Xerox Copy of Samsung Service Centre.

We have carefully considered the case supported by the above documentary evidence.  In

view of the fact it is crystal clear the OPs avoided to replace the defective hand set or to repair the

handset of the complainant.

            So, it is a fit cast to hold that the complainant has proved the allegation of deficiency in

service and unfair trade practice against the OP.

               Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the complainant case be and the same is allowed  ex parte.

            The complainant shall get Rs.51,000/- (Fifty one thousand) only with up to date interest which was given to the Mobile Plaza by the complainant for the Samsung Galaxy 55 Set or to replace the

 

Contd…………………P/3

 

 

- ( 3 ) -

 

 Samsung Galaxy 55 set by a new one.

            Op No.4 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) only damages and costs within 60 days from the date of this order, in default the complainant is at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with the provision of law in this behalf.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

               Member                                     Member                                              President

                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                      Paschim Medinipur.