Tripura

West Tripura

CC/72/2016

Sri Dulal Chandra Sarkar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Samsung Care. & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

21 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC-  72 of 2016 

Dulal Chandra Sarkar,
S/O- Haripada Sarkar,
Kishmat Kori, P.S. Amtali, 
District- Tripura (West).        ..…..…...Complainant.

          VERSUS

1.     The Samsung Care,
S.B Electronics,
H.G.B. Road, Near Hotel Raj Palace,
Melarmath, Agartala, 
West Tripura.

2.     The Samsung Mobile Company,
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. India,
A 25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, 
Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
New Delhi- 110044.        ..............Opposite parties.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : Complainant in person.

    For the O.P. No.1            : None appeared.  
For the O.P. No.2            : Sri A. L. Saha,
                      Sri Kajal Nandi,
                      Sri Abheek Saha,
                      Advocates.      

 

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  21.12.2016

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by Dulal Sarkar U/S 12 of the Consumer  Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that he purchased one Samsung J7 Mobile from the S.B. Electronics, H.G.B. Road, Melarmath, O.P. No.1. But after few days the mobile was not working properly. Camera of the mobile did not work. Then he went to the Samsung Service Centre at Melarmath. They told him to deposit Rs.230/- in the cash counter. Accordingly he paid the amount in cash. After 4-5 days he went to take delivery then they asked him to pay Rs.1290/- for repairing the camera. They misbehaved with him and insisted for payment of Rs.1290/-. He did not care and took back the mobile. Mobile become inoperative within the warranty period of one year. So he is entitled to get free service. So the complainant prayed for refund of the money paid by him and also compensation for deficiency of service. 

O.P. No.2, Samsung Mobile Company filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated by the O.P. No.2 that they are willing to carry out necessary repairs and replacement of the parts strictly as per the terms and conditions of warranty manual.  In case of physical damage of the mobile there is no question of repair or replacement as it was physically damaged due to negligence.  So O.P. is not under obligation to pay any compensation.

O.P. No.1, Samsung Care S.B. Electronics did not appear to contest the case.

4.        On the basis of assertion denial made by the parties following points cropped up for determination;
        (I) Whether the mobile was physically damaged by the negligence of the petitioner?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation as claimed?
5.        Petitioner produced the vouchers of S.B. Electronics, Tax/VAT Invoice paid for repairing , cash memo and also examined one witness i.e., the petitioner. 
6.        Respondent on the other hand produced no evidence.
7.        On the basis of evidence on record we shall now determine the above points.

Findings & Decision:
8.        Claimant petitioner stated that after 10 days of purchase his mobile was not working, camera was not functioning. There was one year warranty. So, he went to S.B. Electronics for repairing of the mobile. Firstly they charged Rs.230/- and he paid the same. Thereafter S.B. Electronics gave estimate of Rs.1290/-. He paid service charge for checking only. Rs.230/- was taken. Petitioner produced the estimate given by Samsung authorized service centre. We have gone through that estimate. In that estimate it is written that the cost of parts is Rs.887/-, service charge Rs.350/-. Total service charge Rs.402/-. It is found that for checking only Rs.230/- was taken. S.B. Electronics firstly had given assurance that with that money the mobile will  be repaired. Accordingly Rs.230/- was paid by the petitioner. That money was not returned again Rs.1290/- was claimed for repairing. In the written statement it is stated that camera was damaged due to physical handling. But O.P. No.2 did not produce any evidence. O.P. No.1 did not appear before the court who received the mobile phone for repairing. 
9.        O.P. No.1,  Samsung  Care, S.B. Electronic sold the mobile phone to the petitioner and Rs.13500/- was taken as the price. But they did not take care for repairing. No report was given to support that the camera was destroyed or damaged due to mishandling by the petitioner. Another ground Samsung mobile company stated that due to physical mishandling the mobile was damaged. The matter of water leakage also not comes out from evidence to support the contention of the O.P. Imaginary contention was taken by O.P. No.2. O.P. No.1 did not give any written report to support that due to water leakage the camera was damaged. O.P. No.2 is running business in the Agartala area but challenging the jurisdiction of the court. The service centre did not give proper service to the customer. Being the seller O.P. No.1  had the liability to arrange the repairing. But it was not done. So, S.B. Electronics being the service centre of Samsung mobile phone is under liability to repair the mobile phone within the warranty period.  If it is not done they are to give sufficient reason for not doing so. It was not done. Therefore, it is considered deficiency of service. O.P. No.2 is vicariously liable for acts of its service centre. Petitioner therefore is entitled to get compensation for this deficiency of service. Both the opposite party are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.  The petitioner is entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs.15,000/-. Both the above points are decided accordingly.
        
10.        In view of our above findings over the points this case is decided. We direct both the Opposite parties, Samsung Care, S.B. Electronics and Samsung Mobile Company, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. is to pay Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner within 2 months, other wise it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing i.e., on 05.09.16. Supply copy.  

                      Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.