Orissa

Rayagada

CC/61/2019

Sri L.M Patnaik - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Self

09 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.      61      / 2019.                            Date.   9. 4. 2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                      President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

   Shri  L.M.Patnaik, S/O: Late Dandapani Patnaik, Raniguda Farm,    Po/Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha). 765 001,                                                                                                                                                     …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The   Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Plot No  28/29, Tower D Noida SECtor-62, Noida 2201309.

2.The Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar-751007 Near RAsulgarh Over bridge,  Sector-A, Bhubaneswar- 751 007.

2.The  Manager, Majhigouri  Cell  point, Rayagada(Odisha)..…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

.For the O.Ps 1 & 2 :- Sri  K..Ch.Mohapatra, Advocate, Bhubaneswar.

For the  O.P.No.3:- Set exparte.

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non rectification of Samsung Metro-350  mobile   which was found defective within warranty period and not removed the defects  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps 1 & 2  put in their appearance and filed written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps 1 & 2  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, . The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P1 & 2. Hence the O.Ps 1 & 2  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Inspite of notice the O.P.No.3 was  absent on repeated call. Hence the O.P. No.3 was set exparte.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the O.Ps   and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                        FINDINGS.

There  is no dispute that   the  complainant has purchased  Samsung   Metro 350 SM B351E  having  its IMEI No.  353571-09-44655-8 on Dt. 9.8.2018   from the O.P. No.3  bearing    invoice  No. 54 on Dt.9.08.2018  on  payment  of  consideration  a sum of Rs.3,270/-. The O.Ps. have   sold  the  said set to the complainant providing  one year warranty period. (copies  of the       bill    is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I ).

After  using  some  months i.e with in the warranty period  the complainant  has  shown  defective in the above set i.e. it became net working problem,  Hanging, Heat problem, camera, data missing found, Battery drained very quickly, flash light not working, Automatic switch off  and was not functioning properly. Hence   the complainant  approached the  service centre  situated at Rayagada(Odisha)  for its rectification.  But the   Service centre has not rectified the  same within the warranty period

The main grievances of the complainant is that due to non  rectification of the  above  set perfectly  within warranty period  he wants  refund  of purchase  price of the above set. Hence this C.C. case.

The O.Ps in their written version  contended that the Hang is neither a technical defect nor a manufacturing defect of the above set.   Here the complainant has approached  to  the  service centre  on different dates  for the problem of  his set and after upgraded the software, he never approached further before any body for non  rectification of the above set. Hence the  complainant  be put to put to strict  proof   of the same. How the complainant has claimed that, there is a defective set on absent of any expert opinion report.  Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief prayed in the complaint petition and thus the complaint may dismissed.

During the course of  hearing the complainant  in person  present before the forum and submitted that  due to  hanging a  heat  problem  the complainant could not be used the above set .  Hence he wants  purchase  price of the above set.

The  O.Ps    in their written version mentioned citations  of the  Apex  Commissions   to  defend  the  case   in   their  favour.

Considering the evidences, submissions by both the parties, we are of the view that  the above set  purchased by the complainant has inherent defect, and the OPs failed to rectify the set. Thus the complainant sustained mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses due to the negligence and unfair practices of OP.s.

Provisions of C.P.Act 1986 for grant of compensation is a species developed from the law of Torts, price factor in calculating the damage for any loss in tort is subsidiary, the prime factor to consider is mental agony, harassment & negative social impact.

An exemplary damage, should serve the purpose of hindering these absecue and unscrupulous traders continuing such unfair trade practices duping innocent customers. Further, we have carefully examined the alleged mobile set and found defects. It is further noticed that, despite service of notice of this forum none of the OPs took any initiations to settle the matter of complainant. Hence we feel that the action of OPs are arbitrary, highhanded, illegal which amounts to deficiency in service, hence found guilty under the provisions of sec. 2(1)(g) of the C.P.Act, as thus the complainant is entitled for compensatory relief, so we allowed the complaint against  the OP.

O R D E R

                                In  resultant the complaint petition  is allowed  on contest against the O.Ps.

The O.P No.1  (Manufacturer)   is ordered to refund Rs.3,270/- to the complainant towards  price  of the mobile set  Samsung Metro 350  which was purchased by  the complainant  on Dt. 9.8.2018 . Parties  are left to bear  their own cost.

The O.Ps 2 &3  are  directed to refer the matter to the O.P No. 1(Manufacturer)   for early compliance  of the above order and co-operate the complainant for better co-ordination with the O.P.  No. 3   to provide satisfying service  for which he is entitled.

The O.P No.1  is ordered to comply the above direction within one month from the date of receipt of this order.     Service the copies of the order to the parties.

Dictated  and  corrected  by  me.

Pronounced on this               9th.      Day    of    April, 2021.

 

 

                                                Member                                                          President