Orissa

Rayagada

CC/222/2016

Smt. Kiranabala Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Samsung India Electronics Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

          DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

 

                                                      C.C. Case  No.222/ 2016.

                                                                       

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc.                                    Member

            Smt.Kiranabala Behera, aged about 60 years, W/o late Kesaba Chandra     Behera,            resident of Indira Nagar,6^th Lane, At/Po/Dist. Rayagada, Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                  ………Complainant

Versus

1.  Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, A 25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.
2. The Proprietor, Kapilas Cyber Solutions, Besides Hotel Kapilas ,Main Road, At/Po Rayagada, Odisha.

                                                                                              ……...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 J700 mobile   from O.p. No.2 with a  consideration of Rs14,300/- on 27.04.2016   but  after few months of  its  purchase the mobile set  was found defective and it could not be used properly for which  the complainant approached the service centre  but  the service centre  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 with a new one   and  award compensation for mental agony  and such other relief as the forum deem fit and proper . Hence, this complaint.

                         On being noticed, the O.p 1 appeared  through their advocate and filed written version inter  alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. It is submitted by the O.P 1 that  the case is not maintainable  and liable to be dismissed.  There is no cause of action to file this case against the O.p 1.  The real fact is that the complainant has purchased the mobile set  on 27.04.16 from the OP 2 for a consideration amount of Rs.14,300/-  with a warranty period of one year and the warranty of the said mobile phone expired on 26.04.2017 . The daughter of the complainant has visited the service centre on 06.06.2016 and lodged complaint regarding the defect of the battery and demanded for replace of the battery  and the service centre replaced the battery  and further the complainant and his daughter  rushed to service centre on 08.07.16   for remove the defect of the mobile  and handed over the handset  to service centre and received the job sheet as the display of the mobile was blank and on the next day on 09.07.16  the service engineer verified the mobile and observed that the LCD of said mobile was defective due to liquid  logged. Hence  the service would be made in out of warranty and the complainant would also agree to repair the mobile phone in out of warranty/in paid service. But unfortunately, at that time OCTA of that mobile was not available before the OP 1 but the complainant did not want to wait for some days  and demanded to repair her mobile  immediately. So the OPP1  has offered to refund the rest amount of her purchase price by excluding the cost of the OCTA but the complainant did not agree with the OP 1 and return back  her mobile from service centre. Thereafter all of sudden the complainant filed this complaint with false and vexatious pleas against the Ops  in oblique motive and with ill intention  and without any cause of action arose against the Ops to tarnish the reputation of the OP1 and to secure illegal and unlawful gains from the OP 1 and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

 

                                                                       FINDINGS

                        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   with a new one with fresh warranty   and pay cost and compensation of Rs.1000/- . Further, we direct the Ops to pay the aforesaid award amount  within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps 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 20^th day December,2016 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  Money Receipt.
2. Xerox copy of Service details
3. Acknowledgement of service request.
4.  

 By the Opp.Party:  Nil

                                                                                                           President