Date of filing : 23.01.2019
Date of order : 04.08.2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L. PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc., B.L. MEMBER-I SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER-II
THURSDAY THE DAY 4TH AUGUST 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.24/2019
M.K. Rathinavel Pandiyan,
Son of Kaliyappan,
No. 60/2, V.S.R. Complex,
Jayarama Chetty Street,
Vellore – 632 004. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Proprietor,
Sri. Venkatesawara Mobile and Telelink,
Shop No: 81, Main Bazaar,
Vellore – 632 004.
2. The Area Manager,
Service Shop at Samsung Service Room,
Vellore,
Vellore District. …Opposite parties
Counsel for complainant : Thiru.N.S.Gopinath
For First and Second opposite parties : Set exparte on 21.11.2019
ORDER
THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant has prayed for the Hon’ble Commission to direct the opposite parties to recovery the mobile worth Rs.3250/- from the first opposite party and the first and second opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as damages of mobile cell to the complainant, for insufficient service and for mental agony suffered and also cost of this proceedings.
1.The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:
The complainant purchased a mobile phone namely Samsung Metro XL 355 for Rs.3,250/- from the first opposite party on 22.07.2016. The said mobile had a Six month warranty. But within a week mobile phone got repaired. Then the complainant gave the said mobile phone for the service, who is the authorised service centre of first opposite party. The first and second opposite parties refused to receive the mobile phone of the complainant for service. Hence he could not use his mobile phone. As a result the complainant caused mental agony and untold hardship. Hence the complainant issued a legal notice on 08.08.2016. The second opposite party gave a reply stating that, we regret for the non-service of the complainant’s mobile phone. Further they also requested the complainant to the service centre for service his mobile. The allegation of the complainant is that, though the mobile phone has a warranty, the opposite parties refused to service the mobile phone of the complainant. Hence there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence filed this complaint.
2. Though the notice was received by the first and second opposite parties from this commission. The opposite parties did not appear before this commission. There was no representation on the side of the opposite parties and therefore, the first and second opposite parties was called absent and Set exparte.
3. Proof affidavit of the complainant was filed. Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. Written argument of complainant filed. Oral arguments also heard.
4. The Points that arises for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint
3. To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
5. POINT NOS.1&2 The complainant purchased a mobile phone of Samsung Metro XL 355 for Rs.3,250/- from the first opposite party on 22.07.2016. The said receipt for which was marked as Ex.A1. The said mobile has a six months warranty period. The warranty card was marked as Ex.A6. During the warranty period the mobile developed the problem. Hence, he had approached the second opposite party, who is the authorised service centre of the first opposite party. But the second opposite party refused to service the mobile of the complainant. Since, the mobile has a six-month warranty. The second opposite party being an authorised service centre should rectify the complainant mobile. But in the present case they did rectify the repair. Further they did not appear before this Hon’ble Commission to contradict to the complainant. Therefore, we have no other option except accepting the version of the complainant. Hence these Point Nos. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.
6. Point No. 3 As we have decided that the Point Nos.1 and 2 that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the first and second opposite parties. The first and second opposite parties are jointly or severally hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,250/- (Rupees Three Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) the cost of the mobile phone and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. This Point No.3 is also answered accordingly.
7. In the result, this complaint is allowed. The first and second opposite parties are jointly or severally hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,250/- (Rupees Three Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) the cost of the mobile phone and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 4th August 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1 – 22.07.2016 - Original Bill bearing No.997 issued by the first
respondent to the petitioner
Ex.A2 – 08.08.2016 - Copy of Legal notice
Ex.A3 - - Postal Receipts
Ex.A4 - - Served acknowledgement
Ex.A5 – 13.08.2017 - The respondents issued the reply notice
Ex.A6 - - Copy of Warranty Card
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:- -NIL-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
