IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 17th day of November, 2015
Filed on 19.11.2014
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.306/2014
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Simon P.B. 1. The Proprietor, Gulf Land
Poontharasseril Gift and Duty Paid Shop
Chettikkad Zero Junction, Mullackal
Pathirappally P.O. Alappuzha
Alappuzha
(By Adv. M.I. Faizal) 2. The Managing Director
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
2nd, 3rd, & 4th Floor, Tower-C,
Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course
Road, Gurgaon, Sector – 43
Haryana – 122 002
(By Adv. K.T. Anishmon – for Opposite parties 1 & 2)
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a mobile phone from the first opposite party manufactured by the second opposite party for an amount of Rs.22,900/- on 7.12.2013. The phone became defective during warranty period and the defect was intimated to the opposite parties. The technician of the service centre after inspecting the product informed that the phone is defective due to manufacturing defect and the mother board has to be replaced. But the opposite parties failed to repair the product. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint seeking a direction against the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile phone along with compensation and costs.
2. Notices were served to the opposite parties. First opposite party filed version. The Second opposite party filed memo stating that they adopting the same contentions that of first opposite party.
3. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. The said phone was not brought to the authorized service centre of the second opposite party. The representative of the opposite party admitted manufacturing defect is false. The alleged manufacturing defect has not been proved by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, so the complaint may be dismissed.
4. Complainant was examined as PW1and produced the mobile phone which was marked as MO1. The retail invoice marked as Ext.A1, Warranty card is marked as Ext.A2 and the Owner’s manual is marked as Ext.A3.
4. Considering the allegations of the complainant and contentions of the opposite parties, the Forum has raised the following points for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for?
5. Point Nos.1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a mobile phone from the first opposite party manufactured by the second opposite party for an amount of Rs.22,900/- on 7.12.2013. During the warranty period the said phone became defective. But the opposite parties failed to repair the same, the complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint seeking refund of the price of the mobile phone. Admittedly the product was purchased on 7.12.2013 and the defect was occurred within the warranty period. The complainant produced the mobile phone before the Forum. According to the complainant he could not use the phone due to the inherent manufacturing defect. The opposite parties were given sufficient opportunity to rectify the defect, but they failed to do so. The case of the complainant has been proved by supporting documents. So, the opposite parties liable to replace the product. Since the opposite parties failed to repair or replace the product even after getting an intimation that too in the warranty period amounts to deficiency in service. Since the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service they are liable to pay compensation and costs to the complainant. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable, so the complaint is allowed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to replace the defective mobile phone with a new one of the same model / price with fresh warranty to the complainant within one month from the date of order. Failing which the opposite parties are directed to refund the price of the mobile phone Rs.22,900/- (Rupees twenty two thousand and nine hundred only) to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 17th day of November, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Simon P.B. (Witness)
MO1 - Mobile phone
Ext.A1 - Retail invoice
Ext.A2 - Warranty card
Ext.A3 - Owner’s manual
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
//True Copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Party/S.F
Typed by :- Pr/-
Compared by :-
