BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C.No: 201/2012 Filed on 28/06/2012 Dated : 29..09..2012

Complainant:

Archana G. Nair, Sakthi Vilasom, Charupara, Kattakkada – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

(Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. The Manager, Samsung India Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square Sector – 43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002.

2. M/s. Smart Electronics, TC 28/986(2), Swara 46, Sreekanteswaram, Fort – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

3. Proprietor, M/s. Sherif Duty Paid Shop, CD Palace, Kattakkada.

This O.P having been heard on 22..09..2012 the Forum on 29..09..2012 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

The complainant had purchased a Samsung Mobile Set for Rs.1,050/- from 3^rd opposite party M/s. Sherif Duty Paid Shop, CD Palace, Kattakada, Thiruvananthapuram on 10/4/2012 with one year warranty period and its IME No. 354988045552133 BAT: S/N AAIBC 23 PS CHAR RC 2C12 4BS. On the same day when she tried to insert the sim it was found that the sim slot was damaged. Immediately she brought the Mobile set to the seller M/s. Sherif Duty Paid Shop and they have advised to approach the authorised service centre M/s. Samsung India Electronics. When she approached the service centre, they expressed a negative attitude and informed her that Rs. 600/- will be charged for repairing the mobile set. Stating the above, she sent a complaint to the 2^nd opposite party through an Advocate, but there was no response. Hence this complaint for redressal of her grievances.

2. Opposite parties remain ex-parte.

3. Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P6 and the handset in dispute has been marked as MO1.

The issues for consideration are:

1. Whether the handset supplied to the complainant suffer from any defects?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

4. Points (i) & (ii): Ext. P2 is the cash bill which proves the purchase of the handset from the 3^rd opposite party by the complainant by paying an amount of Rs. 1,050/-. Complainant has filed an affidavit in support of her complaint wherein she has affirmed that the mobile phone's sim slot was found damaged on the date of purchase itself, while she tried to insert the sim and that when the same was brought to the knowledge of the 3^rd opposite party, complainant was advised to approach 2^nd opposite party, who in turn claimed Rs. 600/- for repairing the same. According to the complainant, since the defect was seen on the 1^st day itself and the same was found to be damaged from the very inception of its purchase, complainant is not liable to pay the same. Complainant has not been cross examined hence her affidavit stands unchallenged. Opposite parties have not appeared to contest the case before the Forum. The allegation levelled against the opposite parties have not been challenged by them.

5. As per Ext. P3, the defect description is Dead WA 8463 Physical damage OW 8463. The date of service is 13/4/2012. Ext. P2 shows date of purchase as 10/4/2012. Hence from this it is evident that, the phone was entrusted with the opposite parties within 3 days of its purchase. On perusing MO1, it is seen to be a new piece, not much used. But the sim slot is seen damaged. The same is visible with one's naked eye. But its surprising to note that the sim slot has been damaged and the complainant did not notice it at the time of purchase. But the complainant has sworn that, when she found it damaged the same was taken to the service centre, the staff of the service centre fully damaged the same set. Since complainant has not been cross examined, her affidavit stands uncontroverted. From the above, this Forum finds that the complainant has succeeded in establishing her complaint. Hence we find that the complainant has been made to suffer for no fault on her part and the complainant is found entitled for a new handset. Complainant has been deprived of enjoying the benefits of a new phone and for the mental agony, hardship and sufferings this Forum finds that the complainant is entitled for a compensation and cost of Rs. 1,500/-.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 & 2 shall jointly and severally replace the defective MO1 with a new handset of the same model within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which opposite parties 1 & 2 shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 1,050/- to the complainant. Opposite parties 1 to 3 shall pay an amount of Rs. 1,500/- to the complainant towards compensation and costs. Time for compliance 2 months from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount (Rs. 1,050 + 1500 = Rs. 2,550/-) shall carry interest @ 9%.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 29^th day of September, 2012.

sd/-

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

sd/-

ad. BEENA KUMARI.A., MEMBER.

C.C.No: 201/2012

APPENDIX

1. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Warranty Card

P2 : Cash bill dated 10/4/2012 No. 865 issued by Sherif duty paid shop & CD palace.

P3 : Copy of service request dated 13/4/2012

P4 : Letter issued to Archana. G. Nair by Smart Electronics.

P5 : Advocate notice dated 8/5/2012 issued to the Manager, Samsung Ind Ltd.

P6 : Postal receipt.

II. Complainant's witness : NIL

III. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

sd/-

PRESIDENT