IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 21st day of July , 2012
Filed on 20.03.2012
Present
1. Sri. K. Anirudhan, Member (President-in-charge)
2. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.95/2012
between
Complainant :- Sri. Vimal Vijayan, S/o K.K.Vijayan, Kurisuparambil, Beach Road, Alappuzha. | Opposite parties:- 1. The Proprietor, Digital Dreams, City centre; General Hospital Junction, Alappuzha-688001 2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate Suites, New Delhi - 110 044 3. The Authorised Signatory, The Manager Service, I Care Solution , MCW 26 /475A, Stadium Ward, Alappuzha - 688 001 |
| |
O R D E R
SRI.K.ANIRUDHAN, MEMBER (PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE)_
Sri. Vimal Vijayan has filed this complaint before the forum, alleging deficiency in service on the side of opposite parties. His allegations are as follows:- He had purchased a Sam Sug GT/ B7722 Model Mobile Phone from the first opposite party on 20/4/11 vide invoice No:364 for an amount of Rs.9990/-. It is alleged that the set became defective in several respects and within the warranty period. He contacted the first opposite party and requested to rectify the defects. As per the request of the first opposite party for sufficient time to diagnose the defects, they had collected the set from him. After that they had returned the set on 23/02/12 confirming that the issues have been resolved. It is further alleged that the set became defective again. He also contacted the service Manager of the said firm and handed over the set to them on 29/02/2012. They returned the set to him after stating that they have rectified the defect and further directed to contact the Sam Sung company directly if the defects occurred again. But the defects occurred and he had not obtained any proper relief so far. Hence this complaint.
2. Notice sent to the opposite parties. Even though they had accepted the notice of this forum, they have not entered appearance before the forum. Considering the absence of the opposite parties; they were declared as exparte.
3. Considering the allegation of the complainant the forum has raised the following issues for consideration.
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service and negligence on the side of
opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitle to get compensation and cost?
4. Issues 1 and 2:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit produced documents in evidence. Exts.A1 and A2 marked. Ext.A1 is the invoice dated 20/04/11 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant at the time of receiving the amount of the set by the first opposite party. The receipt was for an amount of Rs.9990/-being the total price of the set. Ext.A2 is the invoice issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant, regarding the work order.
5. We have verified the entire matter of this case in detail and verified the documents, filed by the complainant in evidence. It can be seen that the complainant purchased the above set from the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.9990/- and that the first opposite party had issued the receipt for the said amount. It is alleged by the complainant that the set became defective. When contacted by the complainant, the first and 3rd opposite parties have not taken any sincere attempt to rectify the defects permanently. The complainant contacted several occasions before the first opposite party. But the complainant had not obtained any proper relief from the opposite parties 1 and 3. It is alleged that the defects of the set occurred within a short time after its purchase and within warranty period. The first and 3rd opposite parties had collected the set from the complainant in several times for rectification of the defects. But they could not returned the set to him after rectifying the defects permanently. It will be treated as manufacturing defects. On an overall readings of the entire matter involved in this case, we are of the strong view that the said opposite parties had not taken any sincere attempt to cure the defects permanently. The opposite parties are fully entitled to rectify the defects of the set permanently or return a new set to the complainant. Any kind of deviation is to be treated as deficiency in services. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the further view that the whole action taken by the opposite parties 1 and 3 are highly illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized. The complainant is fully entitled to get the relief claimed in the complaint. All the facts and circumstances of this case shows that; there is grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties 1 and 3. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the action taken by them. So we are of the view that the allegations raised by the complainant are to be treated as genuine. The willful absence of the opposite parties before this Forum shows their irresponsible attitude towards this case for an amicable settlement. In the result the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result we hereby direct, the opposite parties 1 and 3 to return a new set to the complainant having the same price and specification of the defective set already supplied to the complainant, after collecting it from the complainant, and further pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only ) to the complainant for his mental agony; physical strain, loss, inconvenience, harassment and pain due to the grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence, unfair trade practice and cheating by way of neglecting to rectify the defects of the set permanently and committed inordinate delay for the same, their cheating nature and purposeful refusal to give a new set to the complainant in time. We further ordered that the opposite party 1 and 3 shall pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only ) to the complainant as costs for this proceedings. Considering the facts and circumstance of this case; we are of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 and 3 are bound to pay punitive cost to the complainant. Hence we direct the opposite parties 1 and 3 to pay a punitive cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only ) to the complainant. We further ordered that in case any violation of this order by the opposite parties 1 and 3, they shall pay interest at the rate of 18 % for the total amounts ordered to pay by the opposite parties 1 and 3, and further ordered that the complainant is free to proceed against the assets of the opposite parties 1 and 3 for the realization of the relief as per this order.. We direct the opposite parties 1 and 3 to comply with this order within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Complaint allowed
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 21st day of July, 2012.
Sd/- Sri.K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext. A1 -Receipt dated 20/09/2011
Ext.A2- Application form
Evidence of the Opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
