Orissa

Rayagada

CC/463/2015

Silla Santosh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Self

03 Jun 2016

ORDER

          DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                                                  C.C. Case  No.463/ 2015.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                                           President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.,                                                Member

            Sri Silla Santosh Kumar, S/o Silla Sankar Rao, Rayat Colony,  Po/Dist. Rayagada,    Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ………Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

 

1. The Manager,Samsung India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi,110044.
2. The Manager, Om Collections, Sarala Junction, Main Road, Rayagada.
3. The Manager, Samsung Service Center, Rayagada.

                                                                                                             ……...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 Mobile  from O.p. No.2 with a  consideration of Rs.22,000/- on 13.11.2014 vide Cash Memo No.798 with one year warranty    but  after  its  purchase the mobile set  was found defective and during its warranty period it has under gone services for more than three times  and finally after keeping the same the O.p 3 returned the mobile set and refused to give any service  and hence finding no other option  the complainant  approach this forum and prayed to direct the O.ps to replace the  defective mobile  with a new one or   refund the cost of  Rs.22,000/- 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 2  and  other Opp.Parties and  this is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost in favour of the Opp.Party. The real fact is that the complainant has purchased the mobile set  on 13.11.14  from the O.p No.2 for a consideration amount of Rs.22,000/-  and used the mobile set till 15.10.2015 without any objection/claim lodged before  any Opp.Parties regarding defect. On 21.11.15 the complainant has claimed before the Samsung Customer Service Centre, Rayagada  to remove the defect of hanging from the mobile set and the O.p No, 3  has upgraded the software of the said mobile phone and delivered the said repaired mobile phone to the complainant  in OK condition. So as per the complainant, it reveals from the job sheet that the said mobile phone was functioned properly till 15.10.2015 and hence  it confirmed that there is no  manufacturing defect in the mobile set of the complainant. The complainant in oblique motive and with ill intention filed this false and baseless case against the Opp.Parties at the end of expiry of warranty of his mobile set without any cause of action  against the O.P 1. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief prayed in his complaint and thus the complaint  may be dismissed  with heavy cost in favour of the O.P 1 against the complainant.                           

                                                              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 repair  the mobile  and give fresh warranty  and pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- for mental agony under gone by the complainant. If the Ops  fails to comply  the above order   within one month from the date of receipt of this order, the complainant has liberty file execution proceeding U/s 27 of the C.P.Act,1986 . Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 27^th  day May,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  Retail Invoice.
2. Xerox copy of acknowledgement of service request.

By the Opp.Party: Nil

 

                                                                                                           President