COMPLAINT FILED ON: 27.07.2010
DISPOSED ON: 02.02.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
02ND FEBRUARY 2011
PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1742/2010
Complainant | Mr. S. Gururaja, Son of Seetharamaiah, Aged about 56 years, Residing at No.9/10, 2nd Main, Shankarnagar, Behind Reddy Medical, Bangalore 560 096. In person V/s. | |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1. The Manager, Samsung Customer Service HA Plaza, No.8, West of Chord Road, 2nd Stage, Bangalore 560 086. Exparte 2. The Mobile Store, No.24/1, 12 Cross, Next to Exide balls, Mahalaxami Layout, Bangalore-560 086 (Impleaded) Exparte |
| | | | |
O R D E R
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER
This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the OPs (herein after called as O.P) to refund cost of Mobile set Rs.2819/- and Rs.2500 towards conveyance charges and Rs.25,000/- for mental agony along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of receipt of said amount by the OP on the allegations of deficiency in service.
2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:
On 15.07.2009 complainant purchased a mobile set of Samsung Company model E 1410 bearing IMEI 358441023 935582 Sl.No.RW78094173F by paying a sum of Rs.2819/- from OP-2. Copy of the tax invoice is produced. A week after purchase of the said mobile, complainant started using the same but said mobile was not at all in working condition. Complainant met the service center OP-1 for which OP-1 informed that there is a software problem in the said mobile set. Further OP-2 informed the complainant that he will install new software and return the same within one week from the date of taking delivery of the same. OP-1 after installing new software handed over the same to the complainant but complainant due to his pressure of work could not use the said mobile set for a period of 6 months. When complainant started using the said mobile after 6 months again the said mobile was not in a usable condition. Complainant met the OP-2 seeking repair. At that juncture OP-2 informed complainant that there is a mother board problem in the said set and OP-1 will replace the mother board within one month time. After completion of one month period OP-1 returned the said mobile set replacing a new mother board in the said mobile and complainant took delivery of the same. Even after replacing the mother board and software installation the said mobile was not in proper working condition. Complainant met OP-1 again and informed the same for which OP-1 again promised the complainant that they will change mother board and install the software and promised that the said mobile will handover in good working conditions and issued service work order No.875 dated 19.07.2010 with indication of under warranty and also issued work order receipt in which complainant himself written stating “he has given mobile for repair for the fifth time and requested to do the needful and solve the problem or change the mobile set and to give a new set” for which OP-1 has undertaken to get it repair or to give new mobile set. So far OP-1 has not communicated anything to the complainant inspite of many reminders made by the complainant. Complainant fed up with the attitude of OP-1 purchased the new mobile set. After purchase of the new mobile set there were frictions and quarrels in the family of the complainant. Complainant fed up with the attitude of the OPs and suffering from mental agony. Inspite of repeated request there was no response. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service against the OPs. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint for the necessary relief’s.
3. After registration of the complaint notice is sent to OP-1. Inspite of service of notice OP-1 remained absent. Hence OP-1 placed exparte. Later on complainant got impleaded OP-2 who is a dealer. Inspite of service of notice OP-2 remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence OP-2 is also placed exparte.
4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced copy of the tax invoice, copy of the work order dated 19.07.2010. OPs did not participate in the proceedings. Heard argument of the complainant.
5. It is contended by the complainant that on 15.07.2009 he purchased a mobile set made of Samsung Company model C1410, Sl. No. RW78094173F bearing IMEI No. 358441023935582 by paying a sum of Rs.2,819/-. Produced copy of tax invoice issued by OP-2 dated 15.07.2009. Further it is contended by the complainant that after a week of purchase of the said mobile he started using of the same but the said mobile was not at all in working condition; on the same day complainant met the service center i.e., OP-1. Who informed that there was a software problem in the said mobile and informed that he will install new software and handed over the same within one week from the date of taking delivery of the same by the OP-1. After installing new software OP-1 handed over the set to the complainant. Due to pressure of work complainant could not use the said mobile set for about six months. After Six months complainant started using the said mobile but again it was not in working condition. Again complainant met the OP-1 for repair; at that juncture OP-1 informed the complainant that there was a mother board problem and OP-1 promised to replace the mother board within one month time. After completion of one month period OP-1 by replacing the new mother board returned the said mobile to the complainant. Complainant took delivery of the same again complainant found that even after replacing the mother board and software installation the said mobile set was not in proper working condition. Hence again complainant met OP-1 and informed the said problem to the OP. For which OP promised that they will change mother board and install the software and promised that they will hand over in good working conditions and issued a service work order bearing No.875 dated 19.07.2010 with an indication of under warranty and also issued work order receipt. We have perused copy of the work order receipt; in which OP has undertaken to repair or to give new mobile set. When OP-1 has not communicated to the complainant inspite of many reminders. Complainant fed up with attitude of the OP-1 and purchased a new mobile set. Inspite of repeated request and reminders when there is no response from OPs. Complainant approached this forum.
6. We have perused unchallenged affidavit evidence filed by the complainant and the documents produced. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. OP-2 has sold defective mobile set to the complainant; inspite of repair for more than 2 times still the problem is persisting and said mobile set is not in working condition. Hence dealer is responsible for manufacturing defects along with the manufacturer. Complainant has produced job service work order receipt. OPs have failed to repair or to replace with new set till date. Complainant is entitled for free service or replacement within the warranty period. OP-1 being a service provider failed to provide proper service and repair the mobile. From 19.07.2010 there was no response from OP-1 till date. Hence complainant has purchased another new set. From the absence of the OPs we can draw the inference that OPs admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. We are satisfied that complaint is able to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. OP-2 being the dealer is liable to refund the cost of the mobile set being Rs.2,819/- and pay litigation cost of Rs.500/-. The said mobile set is in the custody of service provider i.e. OP-1 as on today. OP-1 is to be directed to return the said mobile set to OP-2. Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.2,819/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed in part. OP-2 is directed to refund Rs.2,819/- being the cost of mobile set and pay litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.
OP-1 is directed to return the said mobile set to OP-2.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication, failing which complainant is entitled for interest at the rate 9% p.a. from 19.07.2010 till realization.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 2ND day of February 2011.)
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
gm.
