DATE OF FILING                    :     03-08-2012.

DATE OF S/R                            :      20-09-2012.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     26-12-2012.

TAPAS KUMAR PANJA.

S/O- Sri Bimal Chandra Panja, Sundarpara, P.O. G.I.P. Colony, P.S. Jagacha,

Howrah– PIN – 711 112.

.-----------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         The Regional Manager, 'Mobile Arena',

            Samsung Customer Service, Samsung India Electronics  Co. Pvt. Ltd.,

            112, G.T.  Road ( South ), near Sandhya Bazar, Howrah – 711 101.

2.         The Director,

            Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

            Samsung Customer Service at suites A-25 ( ground floor ),

            Front Tower Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

            New Delhi – 110044.

3.         R.K. Electronics,

            Jagacha Mohiary  Road,

            ( near Jagacha Police Station), P.O. GIP Colony,

            P.S. Jagacha, Howrah,

            PIN – 711 112. -----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N   T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya,  M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant, Shri Tapas Kr. Panja   U/S 12

of the  C.P.  Act, 1986, as amended upto date  against the O.Ps.  alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ),  2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.Ps. to replace the mobile set in question or to refund the purchase price of the set with interest, to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony along with a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost and other order or orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

2.                  The complainant  purchased one mobile set from o.p. no. 3 on payment of

Rs. 5,400/- vide annexure bill no. 1230 dated 13-04-2012 of Samsung make. On the next date he fixed  his Vodafone SIM Card into  the  said  set. But immediately on 14-04-2012 the set started giving sound problem at the time of receiving call or dialing any call. And on advice of o.p. no.3, complainant went before the service centre of Samsung being o.p. no. 1. O.P. no. 1  told that the problem was due to service provider being Vodafone. And the complainant went to Vodafone Store and purchased one fresh SIM and placed it in his said mobile set vide annexure invoice with receipt dated 18-04-2012. But even then the said set was giving same trouble even it started giving incoming and outgoing audio problem. And o.p. no. 1 after checking the same repaired the set with the assurance that further it would not give any trouble. But on 25-05-0212 same problem cropped up again and complainant again went to o.p. no. 1 and o.p. no. 1 repaired the same. On 07-07-2012 again the set started giving same problem and complainant lodged complaint before o.p. no. 1 and o.p. no; 1 kept the set with them and returned on 09-07-2012. The complainant further alleged that due to his medical check up he went to Vellore / C.M.C. Hospital on 11-07-2012 vide annexure medical documents, and the set was continued with the same problem and he could not make any emergency calls from the said mobile on 12-07-2012 while travelling in train. He could not connect his relatives and friends during such travel and his relatives and friends were very much worried. And after reaching Vellore he had to contact his relatives, friends and hospital through STD Booth which required a lot of money to be spent by him. Another problem was that though he could not hear sound properly, bill was raised for such operation. He faced the problem in both ways. Such problem was even creating trouble for his professional work,  that again snatched away his mental peace. And finding no other alternative, alleging deficiency in providing  service against o.ps. complainant filed this instant complaint

3.                  Notices were served upon o.ps. But none appears for o.p. nos. 1 & 3,  o.p.

no. 2 appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, the case was herd ex parte against o.p. nos. 1 & 3.

4.         Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.         Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Complainant purchased the mobile set on payment of required amount and the set was manufactured by Samsung. Accordingly, complainant is a consumer of all the o.ps. We have carefully gone through the written version of o.p. no. 2 and noted its contents. It is admitted by o.p. no. 2 vide para no. 5 of the written version that minor parts of the set were changed on 02-07-2012 and on 12-07-2012 software development work was done in the said mobile set, wherefrom it is crystal clear that the set was having manufacturing defect since inception. And that very problem created all kinds of troubles for the complainant. During travelling to  Vellore, he was severally in need of a mobile set. But even after paying such a big amount of Rs. 5,400/-, complainant could not get the benefit of carrying a mobile set during the journey which is nothing but a gross negligence on the part of the o.ps. Not only that the o.ps. failed to provide required service so that the set could have been operated properly, the o.p. no. 3 sold a defective set to the complainant. Accordingly, we hold o.ps. to be deficient in service and the case succeeds on merit with costs against the o.ps.

      Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  89 of 2012 ( HDF 89 of 2012 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. no. 2 and ex parte with costs against the o.p. nos. 1 & 3.  

      That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally  directed to replace the mobile set in question with a similar one with fresh warranty within 30 days from this order i.d. Rs. 50/- per day shall be charged against them till actual replacement. If the same model is unavailable, o.ps. are directed to refund the purchase price of  Rs. 5,400/- to the complainant within one month from this order i.d. it shall carry interest @ 10% till actual payment.

      That the complainant do get an award of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost. The o.ps. are directed to pay  the total amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant  within one month from the date of this order  i.d., it shall carry an interest @ 10% per annum till full realization.    

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.