IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 29th day of September, 2011
Filed on 03.05.11
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.154/11
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.Shereef.M, 1. The Proprietor, CELL SOUL,
Pandarakkalam House, South of Stone Bridge, Alappuzha.
Kanjipadam.P.O.,
Ambalappuzha Thaluk, 2. The Production Manager, SAMSUNG India
Alappuzha District, Electronics (Pvt) Ltd., B1 Sector-B1 Phase2,
Pin- 688 005. Noida District, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
3. The Service Manager, SAMSUNG Authorized
Service Centre, Digital Dreams City Centre
Complex, South of General Hospital Junction.
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri.M.Shereef has filed this complaint before the Forum on 03.05.2011 against the opposite parties. The brief facts of the allegation are as follows: - He had purchased a SAMSUNG Mobile Set (GTC3212QRNS) from the first opposite party on 18.01.2011 after giving payment of Rs.3,800/- (Rupees three thousand and eight hundred only). The first opposite party issued the Bill, No.1186 vide dated, 18.01.2011, along with the warranty card. From the very date of its purchase the set became defective. The set was not showing the symbol of reception of signals and display was not working properly. When contacted the first opposite party, they directed him to contact the second and third opposite party. But they were not ready to attend the complaint of the set. He was not obtained any positive step from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint, for proper relief.
1. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. They were not turned up to appear before the Forum, even though they have accepted the notices of this Forum. Considering their absence the opposite parties were declared as exparte by this Forum on 09.08.2011.
2. Considering the allegation of the complainant this Forum has raised the following issues.
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as pray for?
Issues 1 and 2
3. Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his case and produced 2 documents in evidence – Ext. A1 and A2 marked. Ext. A1 is the cash receipt dated, 18.01.2011 for a sum of Rs.3,800/- (Rupees three thousand and eight hundred only) towards the price of the set. The bill was issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A2 is the guarantee card issued by the first opposite party at the time of the said sale of the set. It shows that the warranty period is for one year.
4. We have examined the matter in detail and verified the documents. The complainant had purchased the set for a sum of Rs.3,800/- (Rupees three thousand and eight hundred only) from the first opposite party on 18.01.2011. It is alleged that the set was defective within days. When contacted the opposite parties, by the complainant, the opposite parties had not taken any sincere effort to rectify the defects, even though the defects occurred within the warranty period. The set has warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase. Since the set has became defective within the days of purchase, the opposite parties ought to have taken steps to rectify the defects or issue a new brand one to the complainant.
5. The whole facts of this matter shows that there was no earnest steps to rectify the defects from the side of the opposite party. Since the defects occurred within the warranty period, the opposite parties are fully liable to rectify the defects or issue a new one to the complainant. The whole action of the opposite parties shows that there is deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on their side. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to take proper steps. The action of the opposite parties shows their illegal nature and cheating. Since there is deficiency in service and negligence, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs to the complainant. The opposite parties have no authority to evade from the liability of giving a new set to the complainant. Since the sold item was defective. It is noticed that the opposite parties have not entered appearance before this Forum. This shows their irresponsible attitude towards this issue, so after considering the whole facts of this case, we are of the view that the allegations raised by the complainant are to be treated as genuine and that the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for. Hence the complaint is allowed. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, we hereby direct the 1st opposite party to issue a new set having the same brand and price, to the complainant after collecting the defective set from the complainant, and pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for his mental agony, pain, harassment, sufferings and loss due to deficiency in service, negligence, unfair trade practice of the opposite parties by way of purposeful denial of issuing a new set to the complainant in time, since the purchased has became defective. We direct the first opposite party to pay sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) as the cost of this proceedings to the complainant and further ordered that the opposite parties shall comply with this order, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Complaint allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of September, 2011.
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext. A1 - The cash receipt dated, 18.01.2011 for an amount of Rs.3,800/-
Ext. A2 - The Guarantee Card
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil
.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- P.R/-
Compared by:-
