Orissa

Rayagada

CC/22/2019

Sri Sarat Ku Hantal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor M/s Doordarshan Digital Shoppe, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri R.K. Sanapathi

09 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

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

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

C.C.case  No.      22      / 2019.                            Date.   9.4. 2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                      President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

   Sri Sarat  Kumar  Hantal,  S/O: Late Mukunda Hantal, R.K.Nagar,    Po/Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha). 765 001,                                                                                                                                                     …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Manager, Doordarsan, Dealer, Rayagada(Odisha)

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

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps 1  :- Set   exparte.

For the  O.P. 2:-  Sri  K..Ch.Mohapatra, Advocate, Bhubaneswar.

 

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 G615F  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. 

Inspite of  notice the O.P.No. 1   had not attended the  District Commission  to defend the case.. Hene the O.P. No.1 was set exparte.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps  No.2 put in their appearance and filed written version through  their learned counsel in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps  No. 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.P  No.2. Hence the O.Ps No.2 prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

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 G615F (7 Max)    having  its IMEI No.  353107093911093 on Dt. 12.3.2018   from the O.P.No.1  bearing    invoice  No. 2077 on Dt.12.03.2018  on  payment  of  consideration  a sum of Rs.14,900/-. The O.Ps. had   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 (copies  of the      Acknowledgement of service request    is in the file which is marked as Annexure-2 ).

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 District Commission  and submitted that  due to  hanging a  heat  problem  the complainant could not be used the above set .  Hence he wants  higher  model set and  agreed to pay the differential amount  as he is  a good  well  wisher   of the Samsung  company.

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

On the basis of the pleadings, the following  points  are  to be answered  for coming to the conclusion  of this case.

(i)         Whether this forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint ?

(ii)        Whether the mobile in question is having any manufacturing defect ?

(iii)       Whether there is any deficiency in service  on the part of the opposite parties ?

(iii)       What relief  the complainant  will be entitled?

Point No.1

5.                     As per Sec.11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act “ A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,-

1.             The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are           more   than     one, at the time of the institution of the complaint,          actually           and      voluntarily       resides or carries on business or has a   branch             office or          personally works for gain       ,or
2.             Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time   of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides         or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works         for       gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the             District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do        not reside or   carry on business or have a branch office   or personally   work    for       gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in  such institution; or
3.             The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises”.

                        It is  submitted by the O.Ps in  its written version that  the O.P. No.3 not having any shops/ office  at Rayagada district  as such the complaint is not at all maintainable before this forum. But no where they have stated that they are not doing any business in the district of Rayagada  for their gain.   It is well know to all that the Samsung  Company  is doing their business for gain all over  India. Hence, in the instant case, it is clear that the opposite parties  at the time of the institution of the complaint voluntarily carries on business  and  Samsung companies  service centre is actively functioning     at Rayagada town    and  the  deflects in the mobile set  also pointed  out  at Rayagada, hence the cause of action partly arose in the district of Rayagada. Hence, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to  entertain the present complaint.

 

Point No.2

                         It is the case of the complainant that  since the date of purchase , the mobile hand set   given problem like    battery   heat not working, it used to stuck off, and awitch off, voice also not clear a and the software used to hang off for which the complainant handed over  the mobile to the service canter  for  repair but  the O.P No.3   failed to remove the defects from the mobile set and   the same problem exists . Hence, it is clear that as the defects in the mobile set was detected since the date of purchase and the   O.Ps  fails to  rectify the defect, we believe that it is a inherent  manufacturing defect  for which the mobile set is to be replaced .  

                        Word ‘defect’ as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to  any goods.

                        Hence, in the above aspect Point No.2  is also answered  accordingly in favour of complainant.

Point No.3 & 4

                        As the Point No.1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant , it is concluded  that the opposite parties are deficient in their service .Sec.2(1)(g) ‘ Deficiency in Service means  “ any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the  quality , nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance  of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.  Since the date of purchase , the mobile set  given problem for which complainant   went to the service   canter  for repair   but the defects could not be rectified , which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Therefore, the O.P s are liable to replace  the mobile set with a new one. The Point No.3 & 4 is answered  infavour of the complainant. .  In the aforesaid findings, the complaint is allowed and disposed of with the following directions.

 

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris.  Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed. 

                                                                                              O R D E R

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

The O.P No.2  (Manufacturer)   is ordered to issue  Cupon in favour of the complainant  for Rs.14,900/- towards  purchase price of  Samsung G6 15F mobile  set  which was purchased by the complainant on Dt. 12.3.2018   for  purchase of  higher model  from the Samsung company.  It is clarified that, if the new up-to-date model is above  Rs.14,900/- the complainant will pay the differential price to the O.Ps after deducting the original price. Parties  are left to bear  their own cost.

The O.Ps 1 is  directed to refer the matter to the O.P No. 2(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.2  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