BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 292/2012 Filed on 24.08.2012

Dated : 31.01.2013

Complainant :

Saji. R, Manikkavilakathu Veedu, Kulathoor, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Arun Babu & N.G. Mahesh)

Opposite parties :

1. The Proprietor, Samsung Phone Cafe, V^th Towers, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram-1.

    

2. The Manager, Samsung Service Centre, T.C 28/986(1), SWARA-46, Sreekanteswaram, Thiruvananthapuram-4.

    

3. The Manager, Samsung India Electronics, 602, Vishal Bhavan, 95 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110 019.

    

This O.P having been heard on 28.01.2013, the Forum on 31.01.2013 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Brief facts of the case are as follows: Complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy Note-N-7000 mobile phone for Rs. 32,300/- on 04.12.2011 from the 1^st opposite party for the purpose of his livelihood and he was engaged in real estate markets for the use. The 1^st opposite party is the dealer, the 2^nd opposite party is the service centre and the 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the above mentioned phone. Complainant used the said mobile phone upto 6 weeks but after that the said phone did not work. It is very pathetic to inform that the said phone is lost all the software datas and automatic switch off problem, as a result the complainant could not use the phone that affected his real estate market. Another important factor is that he has lost all datas and images saved in the above said phone. That the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and they upgraded the software and assured that the phone will be perfect condition and all the defects were cured. On 01.08.2012 complainant's phone occurred some defects like speaker complaint, switch off complaint and again sent to the 2^nd opposite party for repair centre. Hence the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for replacing it with new one, but the 1^st opposite party deliberately did not care to redress complainant's grievance. Thus the 1^st opposite party rejected the repeated demands of the complainant without assigning any reason. That the warranty period of the mobile phone is for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase. As complainant purchased the mobile phone from the 1^st opposite party on 04.12.2011 and the warranty extends upto 04.12.2012. As the mobile phone became defective because of the faulty mobile phone supplied by the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are certified to replace the mobile phone which was faulty as its comes within the terms of the warranty published by the 3^rd opposite party, the manufacturer of the mobile phone. The above action shows that there is a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence the opposite parties are liable to indemnify the loss sustained by the complainant. The action and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to gross unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant sent advocate notice to the opposite parties but there is no reply on their side. Hence this complaint.

Opposite parties in this case remained ex-parte.

Points to be ascertained are:-

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Reliefs and costs.

    

Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant has purchased a Samsung Galaxy Note-N-7000 mobile phone for Rs. 32,300/- on 04.12.2011 from the 1^st opposite party. Copy of the bill produced here and marked as Ext. P1. But after a few weeks use the phone became faulty and the 1^st opposite party rectified the defects. But thereafter again on 01.08.2012 the phone became totally damaged. Complainant entrusted the phone to the 2^nd opposite party, the authorized service centre of 1^st opposite party on 03.08.2012. Ext. P2 is the copy of service request issued by the 2^nd opposite party. In that document the defects are noted that speaker complaint and that speaker to be replaced. At that time warranty status is noted as full warranty. Hence the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for replacing it with new one, but the 1^st opposite party did not redress his grievance. Complainant argued that the defects occurred within warranty period that was proved through Ext. P2. Now the phone is with the custody of the 2^nd opposite party. Complainant stated that the mobile phone became defective because of the faulty mobile phone supplied by the opposite parties. Since the defects occurred within warranty period, the opposite parties are liable to indemnify the loss sustained by the complainant. Ext. P3 is the copy of the advocate notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties, but there is no reply on their side. The above actions of the opposite parties show that there is a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. The complainant has succeeded to prove his case through his affidavit and other documents. In this case the mobile phone is in the custody of 2^nd opposite party and therefore there is no need for the proceedings under Sec. 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. The opposite parties never appeared before this Forum to contest the case. From the above mentioned reasons we allow the complaint.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to refund the price of the mobile set as per Ext. P1 i.e; Rs. 32,300/- along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of receipt of the order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of January 2013.

Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 292/2012

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of receipt dated 04.12.2011 for Rs. 32,300/- issued by 1^st

opposite party.

P2 - Copy of service request dated 03.08.2012

P3 - Copy of advocate notice dated 06.08.2012

P4 - Postal receipts ( 3 Nos.)

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb