Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

425/2008

A.Prabakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Samsung India,Electronic Pvt. Ltd.& other - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. Star associates

14 May 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 26.08.2008

                                                                          Date of Order : 14.05.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.425 /2008

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 14^TH DAY OF MAY 2018

                                 

Mr. A. Prabakar,

S/o. D.C. Amaldass ,

No.43/270, Shakthi Koil Street,

Rajaji Salai,

Thiruvallur Taluk,

Thiruvallur District.                                                .. Complainant.                                                       ..Versus..

 

1. The Samsung India,

Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

7 & 8^th Floors, ISCI Tower,

Nehru Place

New Delhi.

 

2.  Saravana Stores (Thanga Nagai Maligai),

Rep. by its Manager,

Nos.115, 116 & 117, Usman Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

3. Hi Tech Solution,                                             

Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

Old No. M 9 B, New No.83,

Anna Nagar East,

Chennai – 600 102.                                              ..  Opposite parties.

 

          

Counsel for the Complainant                      :   M/s. STAR ASSOCIATES

Counsel for  the 1 & 3^rd Opposite parties     :  M/s. V.V. Giridhar   

Counsel for  the 2^nd Opposite party             :   Exparte

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service and to pay the cost of the complaint.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that he purchased a Samsung mobile model SG HE 250 Black S1 No.RVQP 775947 W from the 2^nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 08.09.2008.  Further the complainant submits that during the warranty period within 5 months from the date of purchase, the said cell phone started to give problem of auto off and speaker camera clarity is very low.  Hence the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party who is the service agent for rectifying the defects.   The 3^rd opposite party after due checkup, instead of rectifying the error found in the cell phone, returned the mobile with reason that it has a software problem.  Even after repeated requests and demands, the opposite parties have not attended the fault properly and the mobile handset is not functioning to the satisfaction of the complainant.   Hence the complainant issued notice dated:19.7.2008 for which, the opposite parties have not sent any reply.  The complainant further submits that he is a driver by profession using the cell phone handset for his livelihood and business purposes.  Due to the fault, the complainant’s driving profession and income considerable reduced.    Hence this complaint is filed.

  2.   The brief averments in the written version filed by the 1 & 3^rd opposite parties is as follows:

The 1 & 3^rd opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The 1 & 3^rd opposite parties state that the complainant purchased the mobile handset on 08.09.2007 at his own choice.  Immediately after the receipt of the handset for repair works, the 3^rd opposite party duly repaired the handset and handed over to the complainant.    Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1 & 3^rd opposite parties.  Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     Inspite of receipt of notice, the 2^nd opposite party did not appear before this Forum and therefore, the 2^nd opposite party was set exparte.  

4.    In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  In spite of sufficient time is given, the 1 & 3^rd opposite parties have not come forward to file proof affidavit to prove the contentions raised in the written version.  Hence evidence of the 1 & 3^rd opposite parties is closed.

5.     The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency of service with cost as prayed for?

 

6.     On point:-

    Both the parties have not turned up to advance any oral argument for a long time.  Both parties have not filed any written arguments also.   The opposite parties after filing the written version has not preferred to file any proof affidavit to prove the contentions raised in the written version. Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavit of the complainant, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he purchased a Samsung mobile model SG HE 250 Black S1 No.RVQP 775947 W from the 2^nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 08.09.2008.   But the complainant has not produced any invoice or purchase bill except the warranty card which is marked as Ex.A1.    Further the complainant pleaded and contended that during the warranty period within 5 months from the date of purchase, the said cell phone started to give problem of auto off and speaker camera clarity is very low.  Hence the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party who is the service agent for rectifying the defects.   The 3^rd opposite party after due checkup, issued Ex.A3, Job card in which it was stated that “Hanging Problem Sliding Hard, Software Problem”. 

7.     Even after repeated requests and demands, the opposite parties have not attended the fault properly and the mobile handset is not functioning to the satisfaction of the complainant. Hence the complainant was constrained to issue notice dated:19.7.2008 for which, the opposite parties have not sent any reply.  Hence the complainant was constrained to file this case claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-.   The complainant further pleaded and contended that he is a driver by profession using the cell phone handset for his livelihood and business purposes.  Due to the fault, the complainant’s driving profession and income considerable reduced.   But the complainant has not produced any record to show that he is doing such profession.  The opposite parties in their written version pleaded that admittedly, the complainant purchased the mobile handset on 08.09.2007 at his own choice.  Immediately after the receipt of the handset for repair works, the 3^rd opposite party duly repaired the handset and handed over to the complainant.   But the opposite parties has not produced any record or have not taken any steps to prove such contention.   

8.     But on a careful perusal of Ex.A3, it is seen that the complainant’s handset was having several problems including software problem.  But there is no record produced before this Forum to prove that the opposite parties duly serviced the handset and handed over to the complainant.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is very clear that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.  Hence this Forum is of the considered view that, the opposite parties shall replace a brand new similar mobile of the same model to the complainant or to pay the cost price of the said mobile of Rs.5,000/- with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 to 3  are jointly and severally liable to replace the defective Samsung mobile model SG HE 250 black S1 NO RVQP 775947 W with a branded new one within one month from the date of the receipt of this order or to pay the cost price of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 14^th  day of May 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	08.09.2007	Copy of customer details cum warranty card
Ex.A2	15.02.2008	Copy of Engineer’s Report issued by the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A3	19.04.2008	Copy of Fault Report issued by the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A4	19.07.2008	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite parties

 

1 & 3^RD OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  CLOSED

2^ND OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  EXPARTE

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                     PRESIDENT