Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/22/2017

M.Mohammed Rafeequalla S/o Mohammed Mustafa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Pai International Electronics Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.S.Syed Swaleha

18 May 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:25.05.2017

DISPOSED      ON:18.05.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 22/2017

 

DATED:  18^th MAY 2017

PRESENT: - SRI.T.N. SREENIVASAIAH   : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,  

 

……COMPLAINANTS	1. M. Mohammed Rafeequlla, S/o Mohammed Mustafa, Age: 43 Years, S.D.A, Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Chitradurga, R/o Nehru Nagar, III Cross, Near Gnana Vikas High School, Chitradurga.   2. Salma Tanvi W/o Irfanulla R, Major, R/o Koliburjanahatty, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. S. Syed Swaleha, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Manager, Pai International Electronics Ltd., Chitradurga Branch, B.D. Road, Chitradurga.   2. Danish Mobiles and Computers, Samsung Mobile Company Service Provider, New Santhe Honda Road, Opp: Kalashri Lifestyle, Amogha Complex, Chitradurga-577501.   (ex-parte)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainants u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to replace the defective Samsung Galaxy J7 mobile with new defect free mobile handset or in the alternative to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.13,500/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation towards mental agony and pain and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainants are that, being attracted by the sentence and assurance given by OP No.1, complainant No.1 has purchased Samsung Galaxy J-7-J-700F-4G Gold mobile phone on 12.08.2016 under Invoice No.1032125 in the name of complainant No.2  by paying a sum of Rs.13,500/-.  It is further submitted that, at that time of purchasing the said mobile, OP No.1 has assured and guaranteed that, in case of any major defects have been arisen in the mobile, the same will make arrangement for exchange of mobile with new defect free mobile.  It is further submitted that, after purchase of said mobile, the complainant used the same but, after lapse of some days, the display of the mobile handset started blinking frequently.  Immediately, complainant No.1 approached OP No.1 complaining the defects found in the mobile.  OP No.1 after verification on perusing the handset, OP No.1 advised the complainant that, it is a minor defect and a software need to be installed in the handset and advised the complainant to approach the OP No.2.  The complainant approached the OP No.2 on 01.10.2016 and handed over the handset to OP No.2 in install necessary software.  OP No.2 has informed the complainant to collect the mobile on 03.10.2016.  When the complainant visited the OP No.2 for collection of mobile on 03.10.2016, by that time, the OP No.2 informed that the whole display of handset is not working and it need to be replaced, it requires 1 and half month for repairs.  Complainant No.1 examined the mobile and noticed that, the screen has not displayed at the time of handing over the mobile for repair, the display was getting blank oftenly.  In this regard, OP No.2 has issued customer information slip on 04.10.2016.  Immediately, complainant No.1 has approached the OP No.1 and demanded for replacement of above said defective mobile with new one, which is free from all defects but, OP No.1 refused to do so and ready to get repair the same.  Even after several requests, the OPs have not come forward to replace the defective mobile.  It is further submitted that, complainant No.1 has filed a pre-litigation case against the OPs before the District Legal Service Authority, Chitradurga, the same has been registered as PLC No.557/2016.  After service of notice, OP No.2 contacted the complainant No.1 and convinced that that the entire display has been changed and as per the request of OP No.2, complainants have filed a memo stating that, the OP No.2 has replaced the entire display and handed over the same with good conditions and hence, the PLC was closed as not pressed on 26.10.2016.  After lapse of one month, the same problem has been occurred.  Immediately, the same has been brought to the notice of OP No.1 and OP No.1 has given an assurance that, the defects cam be rectified by providing service and drag on the matter on one or the other pretext and finally.  Due to his rush of work, the complainant No.1 contacted OP No.2 on 30.01.2017 with the same complaint.  Once again, the complainant approached OP No.2 on 01.02.2017, at that time, OP No.2 refused to take complaint and replied that, the warranty period is only for three months and behaved vaguely and arrogantly saying that, it will not provide any service which is a deficiency of service.  The cause of action to file this complaint is when the complainant is arose on 12.08.2016, the date on which the complainant has purchased Samsung Galaxy     J-700F-4G from OP No.1 and also from the date of refusal in providing service i.e., on 01.02.2017.   Therefore, the complainants respectfully prayed before this Forum to allow his complaint with cost. 

3.      On service of notice, OPs have not come forward to file any vakalath and version, hence they placed ex-parte.

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 & A-2 were got marked.

5.      Arguments of complainants heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that:

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, on 12.08.2016 complainant No.1 has purchased Samsung Galaxy J-7-J-700F-4G Gold mobile phone under Invoice No.1032125 in the name of complainant No.2 by paying a sum of Rs.13,500/- from OP No.1.  At the time of purchasing the said mobile, the OP No.1 has assured and guaranteed that, in case of any major defects it will make arrangement for exchange of mobile with new defect free mobile.  After lapse of some days, the display in the handset started blinking frequently.  Complainant No.1 approached OP No.1 complaining about the defects.  OP No.1 after verification and on perusal, OP No.1 advised the complainant that, it is a minor defect and a software need to be installed in the handset and advised the complainant to approach the OP No.2.  On 01.10.2016 the complainant approached the OP No.2 and handed over the handset to OP No.2 to install necessary software.  OP No.2 has informed the complainant to collect the mobile on 03.10.2016 and on 03.10.2016, the OP No.2 informed that the whole display of handset is not working and it need to be replaced, it requires 1 and half month for repairs.  Complainant No.1 examined the mobile and noticed that, the screen has not displayed at the time of handing over the mobile for repair, the display was getting blank often and often.  In this regard, OP No.2 has issued customer information slip on 04.10.2016.  Complainant No.1 has approached the OP No.1 and demanded for replacement of above said defective mobile with new one, which is free from all defects but, OP No.1 refused to do so and ready to get repair the same.  Even after several requests, the OPs have not come forward to replace the defective mobile.  Complainant No.1 has filed a pre-litigation case against the OPs before the District Legal Service Authority, Chitradurga, under PLC No.557/2016.  After service of notice, OP No.2 contacted the complainant No.1 and convinced that that the entire display has been changed and as per the request of OP No.2, complainants have filed a memo stating that, the OP No.2 has replaced the entire display and handed over the same with good conditions and hence, the PLC was closed as not pressed on 26.10.2016.  After lapse of one month, the same problem has been occurred, the same has been brought to the notice of OP No.1 and OP No.1 has given an assurance that, the defects can be rectified by providing service and drag on the matter on one or the other pretext and finally.  Due to his rush of work, the complainant No.1 contacted OP No.2 on 30.01.2017 with the same complaint.  Once again, the complainant approached OP No.2 on 01.02.2017, at that time, OP No.2 refused to take complaint and replied that, the warranty period is only for three months which is a deficiency of service. 

9.      In support of their contention, the complainants have filed affidavit evidence of complainant No.1 and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like order sheet in PLC No.557/2016 wherein the OPs have appeared before District Legal Service Authority and undertake to get it repair the mobile and in view of the undertaking, the PLC was closed, the same has been  marked as Ex.A-1, the memo filed by the OPs undertaking to get it replacement of the handset marked as Ex.A-2, the complainants have produced the Xerox copy of tax invoice dated 12.08.2016 for having purchased the J7-J700F-4G-GOLD mobile handset for Rs.13,500/-.         

10.   On hearing the arguments and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence of complainants, it clearly made out that, complainant No.1 has purchased Samsung Galaxy J-7-J-700F-4G Gold mobile phone under Invoice No.1032125 in the name of complainant No.2  by paying a sum of Rs.13,500/- from OP No.1 on 12.08.2016.  But, after lapse of some days, the display in the handset started blinking frequently.  Complainant No.1 approached OP No.1 complaining about the defects.   But, the OPs failed to rectify the defects found in the mobile hand set.  Even after service of notice sent by this Forum, the OPs failed to appear before this Forum to contest the matter.  So, in the absence of such a material, we believe that, the OPs have committed a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice in selling the defective mobile hand set.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as affirmative.           

            11.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to replace the new Samsung Galaxy J-7-J-700F-4G Gold mobile phone with defect free within 15 days from the date of this order.  If fails to do so, the OPs are hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs.13,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of purchasing of the mobile till realization. 

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this proceedings.

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 18/05/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant No.1 by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

-NIL-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Order sheet in PLC No.557/2016
02	Ex-A-2:-	Memo filed by the OPs undertaking to  replace the handset

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

  -NIL-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**