IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2015
Present: - Smt. G.Vasanthakumari, President
Adv. Ravisusha, Member
Adv.M.Praveen Kumar, Member
CC.No.15/2014
Shibu : Complainant
S/o Karthikeyan
Matheru Vayalil Veedu
DRA-127, Nelli Mukku
Thirumullavaram P.O
Kollam -12
[By Adv. Uliyakovil.S.Navas, Kollam]
V/S
1. The Manager : Opposite parties
Wins International
Samsung Smart Phone Café
High School Junction
Kollam -13
2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd (Additional Opposite party .2)
A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower
Mohan Co- operative Industrial Estate
New Delhi -110044
(Impleaded as per order on IA 55/14 dated 24/04/2014)
[By Adv. P.A.Fazil, Jayasree Manoj, K.Radhamani, Kollam]
ORDER
ADV. M. PRAVEEN KUMAR, MEMBER
Complainant’s case is that he purchased a Samsung GT-S7262 ZWA white having IMEI No.358913057773634 as per Bill No.S 13/1827 on 03/12/2013 at Rs.6750/-. While so, on 13/12/2013 the complainant noted a complaint as low battery backup and he informed the opposite party of this complaint on the same day. When the opposite party got information, he directed the complainant to present the phone at their authorized service centre styled as “Smart Tech Electronics” situated near Kottamukku, Kollam and the complainant presented the same. On 26/12/2013 the service centre returned the phone to the complainant saying that the complaint is rectified and its Board is changed as it is short. But the phone showed the very
(2)
same complaint on the very next day. On 28/12/2013 the complainant contacted the opposite party in person and demanded to rectify the complaint at the earliest or return the purchase price. But the opposite party have not respond so far.
The opposite party sold a defective phone knowing that it is defective. Otherwise the opposite party would have taken sudden and appropriate steps to rectify the defects. Thus the acts of the opposite party constitute deficiency in service. Since the complainant is a consumer he expected best service from the opposite party and hence this complaint praying to direct the opposite party to replace the mobile phone or return the purchase price amount of Rs.6750/- with 24% interest per annum from 03/12/2013 till realization, compensation and cost.
Opposite party 1 set exparte. Opposite party 2 filed version contending that the complainant purchased the Samsung White GT-S7262 ZWA mobile, as per Bill No.S13/1827 on 03/12/2013 for an amount of Rs.6750/-. His allegation is that after 10 days of purchase, he noticed low battery backup. But it is not clear from his complaint as to whether he was using internet service, which could be a reason for excessive battery drain. The mobile phone was repaired in the authorized service centre “ Smart Tech Electronics”. As stated by the complainant the mobile phone was returned on 26/12/2013, after rectifying to defect. Customer was fully satisfied by the service given by the opposite parties. Opposite party never sells defective or low quality products. The service centre of this opposite party has attended the grievances of the complainant, when the handset was brought to it for repair. The mobile phone purchased by the complainant is within warranty and the defect pointed out by the complainant was rectified and mobile phone was returned to the complainant. There was no reason whatsoever, either to give a new mobile phone or to refund its price. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. On 21/06/2014, when the matter came up before this Hon’ble Forum, an officer from this opposite party was personally present and submitted all the details of the recourses available and the service centre repaired the mobile phone, accordingly. But the complainant did not turn up to the service centre to collect the repaired mobile phone.
The mobile phone purchased by the complainant does not suffer any manufacturing defect warranting replacement or refund of its price. The complainant is at fault in not taking the repaired mobile set from the service centre. The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed. The interest of 24% claimed is exorbitant and without any basis. The complainant has
(3)
not suffered any loss or damage on account of any of the actions of the opposite parties and therefore not entitled for any compensation as alleged. The complainant is not entitled for any cost as claimed. On the other hand, the opposite parties may be awarded cost for unnecessary dragging them to this Hon’ble Forum.
The points that would arise for consideration are:-
(1).Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
(2).Reliefs and costs?
The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts P.1 to P.5
The Points: Admitted case of the parties is that the complainant had purchased a Samsung GT-S7262 ZWA white mobile having IMEI No.358913057773634 as per Bill No. S 13/1827 on 03/12/2013 of Rs.6750/-. Complainant produced bill No. S 13/1827 dated 03/12/2013 which is marked as Ext.P1.
In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 5 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit he was examined as PW1 and documents marked as Exts P1 to P5.
Here the crucial question arises for consideration is whether complainant is eligible for getting Rs.6750/- with interest as the value of said mobile or new one.
Complainant argued that he had purchased mobile from 1st opposite party on 03/12/2013 and said mobile became defective on 13/12/2013 and he approached 1st opposite party and informed the matter, then 1st opposite party directed him to place the mobile before their authorized service centre styled as Smart Tech Electronics and placed the mobile before which is evidenced by Ext.P.5 service request dated 05/07/2014 and admitted by 1st opposite party. Ext.P5 states that said mobile was having full warranty at the time of producing the mobile before 1st opposite party. But 1st opposite party not cured the defects of the mobile. Counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that the said mobile is having no manufacturing defects and cured all defects and now it is kept with the 1st opposite party’s shop.
(4)
On considering all aspects, circumstances and evidence adduced, we are of the opinion that opposite parties is either liable to cure all defects of the mobile or replace with a new mobile and to give compensation and cost to the proceeding to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to cure all the defects of the Samsung GT-S7262 ZWA white mobile set with extended warranty of 2 years, if opposite parties cannot do so, in the alternative replace the mobile of same price and same features or give Rs.6750/- (Value of mobile). Opposite parties are again directed to pay Rs.4000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs.1500/- as cost to the proceedings. The order has to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Dated this the 16th day of July 2015.
G.VASANTHAKUMARI:Sd/-
ADV.RAVISUSHA: Sd/-
ADV.M.PRAVEENKUMAR: Sd/-
Forwarded/By Order
Senior Superintendent
I N D E X
PW.1:- Shibu
Ext.P.1:- Retail invoice dated 03/12/2013
Ext.P.2:- Advocate notice
Ext.P.3:- postal receipt dated 04/01/2014
Ext.P.4:- Acknowledgement card
Ext.P.5:-Service request
