Orissa

Cuttak

CC/89/2015

Ajay Modi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor,Mobile Care - Opp.Party(s)

B P Bal

27 Jul 2016

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.89/2015

 

Sri Ajay Modi,

S/O: Jay of: Jaya Prakash Modi,

At:Nimchouri,PO:Chandinichowk,

P.S:Lallbag,Cuttack,Odisha.                                         … Complainant.

 

Vrs.

1. The Proprietor,,

MOBILE CARE,At:Haripur Road,Osiya Tower,

Cuttack,Odisha.

 

2. The Branch Head,

Channel-4(Samsung Authorise Service Center),

Mahatab Road,Saraswati Sadan,

Opp. J.M.G. Showroom,Upper Floor of Bank of Baroda,

Cuttack,Odisha.

 

3. The Care Manager,

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

Samsung Customer Satisfaction,

2^nd Floor,Tower-C,Vipul Tech Square,

Sector-43,Golf Corse Road,

Gurgaon,Haryana-122002.                                           … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy,Presiding Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member.

 

Date of filing:  31.08.2015

Date of Order: 27.07.2016

 

Mr. Bichitra Nanda Tripathy,Presiding Member.

 

                This is a dispute wherein the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

1. The complaint in short is that Mr. Ajay Modi purchased one Samsung Galaxy E7 mobile hand set on 06.07.2015 from Mobile Care,Haripur Road,Osiya Tower,Cuttack for his daughter Miss Shriya Modi on payment of Rs.19,400/-.  The said hand set was with 12 months warranty.  The mobile set turned dead just after 20 days of purchase for which it was given to Channel-4,Mahatab Road,Saraswati Sadan (authorized service centre of Samsung) Opp. J,M.G.Show Room, Upper Floor of Bank of Baroda, Cuttack on 29.07.2015 for necessary repair.  It is alleged that a sum, of Rs.16,640/- was required to repair the said mobile by O.P.2 since P.B.A Octra will be replaced.  The complainant was reluctant to pay such a huge amount since the set was under warranty.  A legal notice was served on O.P.1,2 & 3 for replacement of the said mobile hand set but it yielded no result.  Hence the complainant finding no other way has taken shelter under this Hon’ble Forum.  He has prayed to get back the cost of the mobile set i.e. Rs.19,400/- with interest @ 12% p.a till date of payment  and Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
2. In the present case though several opportunities have been given to O.Ps they neither appeared nor contested the dispute.   In such a situation we are constrained to accept the statement of the complainant as uncontroverted and also presume that the O.Ps have nothing to say further on the matter in their defence. 

In view of the observations of appellant Forum as stated below:

1. 20032-CLT-Vol-96-P-15-Para-4, C.D No.37/2002.(SCDRC-Odisha)

“Absence of written version – Commission is bound to accept the uncontroverted statement made in the complaint.”

2. 2013(1) C.P.R-507(N.C).

“In case written version not filed after several opportunities, it has no defence on merit.”

     Basing on the above noted facts and circumstances, the complainant’s allegation against the O.Ps appears to be correct and we allow the dispute against O.Ps1,2 & 3. 

In view of the observation of the Hon’ble State Commission reported in 2005-CTJ-896, Chandigarh-Raj Han’s Studio Vrs. Kishanlal & another wherein it was held that

“Defect-mobile hand set- Consumer Protection Act,1986,Section2(i)(f)-Dist. Forum held both the dealer and manufacturer conjointly liable and directed for making refund of the price charged from the complainant Appeal dismissed in limini.”

Hence O.P.3 is also liable.

                                                                               ORDER

        The dispute allowed against O.Ps.  O.P.1 is directed to refund the cost of the mobile hand set amounting to Rs.19,400/-(Rupees nineteen thousand and four hundred only).  O.P No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation(including cost of litigation).  Out of this compensation amount of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.4,000/- will be recovered by O.P.1 from O.P.3.  O.P.3 is also directed to ensure that the service centers of the company are providing proper and prompt service to the customers.  The complainant is directed to return the defective mobile set to O.P.1 at the time of receiving money.  O.P.1 will pay the complainant all above noted amount within 45 days from the date of receiving this order by O.P.1, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take shelter of this Hon’ble Forum as peer C.P.Act,1986.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 27^th day of July, 2016 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                          (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                                       Presiding Member.

 

                                                                                                                                   (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                                                               Member(W).