CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Palakkad, Kerala

Dated this the 1^st  day of November 2014

PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT                            Date of filing: 22/03/2013

                 : SMT. SHINY.P.R , MEMBER

       : SMT. SUMA K.P, MEMBER

  CC/ 59/2013

Arun Mohan, “Aiswarya”,

Opp.Mannadiar Handicrafts,

Kannadi P.O,  Palakkad.                                                        :       Complainant    

(By Adv.T.Reena)                                                    

                                                                          Vs

1. The Proprietor,

     Digix  Mobiles,

    11/817/73 Ground Floor,

     Big Bazaar Building, City Centre,

     English Church Road, Palakkad  -678 001.                    :      Opposite parties

     (Party in person)

1. The Managing Director,

     M/s.Samsung India Electronic (P) Ltd,

     A-25, Ground Floor,

     Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial

     Estate Suites, New Delhi- 110044.

    (By Adv.P.Fazil)

1. The Manager,

     Samsung Service Centre,

     Haritha Nagar,

     Near Jayamatha College, Palakkad-678 004

   (By Adv.P.Fazil)                

O R D E R      

By  Smt.  Shiny. P. R.  Member.

Brief facts of the complaint :- The complainant  purchased  “Samsung S. Duos ” mobile No. INEI-354905/05/102594/0 from 1^st Opposite party on 27-12-2012 for Rs.18,500/- (Rupees Eighteen  thousand five hundred only) with a warranty of one year.  After 3 days of the purchase of mobile, it started giving trouble and did not function properly.  Memory card was not supporting the device. Thereafter, the matter was brought to the notice of the 1^st opposite party. As per the advice of the 1^st opposite party the complainant went to the 3^rd opposite party’s showroom to check out the problem and   3^rd opposite party confirmed the defect as  “Memory  card not working”.  The defect is with regard to the mobile and not with the memory card. On 23-1-2012 the complainant sent a lawyer notice to the 1^st opposite party and the opposite party has not sent any reply.  Complainant submitted that opposite parties had failed to replace the defective mobile set despite various assurances given to him. Hence deficiency in service has been alleged on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant prays for the direction to pay Rs.18,500/- towards the cost of mobile with 12% interest from 27-12-2012 till its realization, Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.  

      Complaint was admitted and notice issued for appearance of opposite parties.  After receiving the notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.

1^st Opposite party filed their version stating that there is no deficiency in service from their part. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties admitted the registration of the complaint on 11-1-2013. It was duly attended by the employees of the 3^rd opposite party. 3^rd opposite party returned the device after repair on 17-1-2013. Opposite party No.2 and 3 further submitted that the job entry with the 3^rd opposite party notes as “PCB replaced Set OK” which was duly acknowledged by the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency from the part of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. Complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Expert commission was taken  and commissioner filed commission report stating that defect is  truly  a manufacturer’s fault associated with the device failing to read the micro SD Card.

          The evidence adduced by the complainant consists of his chief affidavit  and Ext. A1 to A5 series.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties filed their chief affidavit.  Commission report is marked as Ext.C1 and MO1 also marked.

The following issues are to be considered.

          1.   Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties?

          2.   If so, what is the relief and cost? 

 ISSUES 1 & 2

          We have perused the documents on record. After perusing the documents we found that a mistake in the complaint regarding the date of lawyer notice sent to the opposite parties. Actually the Ext.A5 lawyer notice is dtd. 23/01/2013. As per Ext.A1 the complainant has purchased “Samsung S. Duos” mobile No. INEI-354905/05/102594/0 from 1^st opposite party on 27-12-2012 for Rs. 18,500/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand five hundred only) with one year warranty.  Mobile set from the 3^rd day of its purchase, had started giving trouble. Ext.A3 shows that the complainant submitted the service request to the 3^rd opposite party on 11-1-2013. But there is no endorsement regarding the return of mobile after repair to the complainant as submitted by the Opposite parties in their counter and chief affidavit. 2^nd and 3^rd  opposite parties not produced job card to show that the complainant received the mobile after replacement of PCB.  No other documentary evidence is adduced by the opposite parties to prove their contention. Commissioner reported in his report that defect is truly a manufacturer’s fault associated with the device failing to read the micro SD Card.  Mobile was not repaired or replaced by the opposite parties . It is the bounden duty of both the manufacturer and dealer to attend the defect and make it a defect free mobile.  As such it is a clear proof of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence we allow the complaint partly.  Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the cost of mobile Rs.18,500/- /-(Rupees Eighteen Thousand five hundred only)  and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as compensation for mental agony along with cost of Rs. 3,500/-(Rupees Three Thousand five hundred only) to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.  The complainant shall return the mobile hand set to opposite party on payment.

     Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

      Pronounced in the open court on this the 1^st  day of November 2014.

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                  Smt. Seena. H

                                                                                        President

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                    Smt. Shiny. P.R

                                                                                         Member

                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                    Smt. Suma K.P                                                                                                          Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1  -   Original bill No.743 issued by opposite party dt.27/12/2012

Ext.A2 – Warranty Card issued by opposite party dt.27/12/2012

Ext.A3- Service request of the Samsung service centre dt,11/1/2013

Ext.A4- Reply mail sent by 2^nd opposite party to the complainant (7 pages)

Ext.A5 series- Copy of lawyer notice with postal receipt dt.23/01/2013

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Nil

Ext C1- Commission Report-Taslim Ahammed, Commissioner

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil 

MO1- “Samsung S. Duos ” mobile No. INEI-354905/05/102594/0

Cost allowed

Rs. 3,500/- (Rupees  Three Thousand Five hundred only)