Orissa

Rayagada

CC/56/2021

Tirumala Prasad Patnaik - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Samsung Service Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Self

18 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.__56_______/2021                                      Date.    18    .12.  2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                Member

 

 

 

Sri Tirumala Prasad  Patnaik,  AT: Gandhi Nagar,   Po/Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha). 765 001,  Cell No. 94385-23142.                                                                                                                                        …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Manager, Sri  Krushna Mobile, Samsung  Service  centre, Rayagada(Odisha).

2. The  Manager, Samsung  India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, A-25, Ground Floor, New Delhi- 110044.                                    .…..Opp.Parties

.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

.

For the O.Ps :- Sri  K..Ch.Mohapatra, Advocate, Bhubaneswar.

 

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non rectification of Samsung mobile   which was found defective and not removed the defects by the O.Ps service centre  and till date not handed over the same to the complainant  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps   put in their appearance and filed written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps   taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, . The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.PS . Hence the O.Ps   prays the commission to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard  the case  arguments from the learned counsel for the O.Ps   and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This District  commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                        FINDINGS.

There  is no dispute that   the  complainant  had  handed over the  Samsung  mobile set  Samsung    GT-19082  EWZINS     bearing  IMEI  No.RZ1DA5TM4QX  to the   service  centre, Rayagada(Odisha)(copies of the   Customer information slip is  available  in the file  which is marked as Annexure-I).   Letter  Dt.2.8.2021  of the  service centre addressed to the complainant    which is available  in the file marked as Annexure-2). Letter  of the  complainant  addressed to the  service centre, Rayagada which is available  in the file marked as Annexure-3).

The main grievances of the complainant is that due to non  rectification of the  above  set perfectly  and not handed  over  the above   set to the complainant  in time   he wants  refund  of purchase  price of the above set. Hence this C.C. case.

The O.Ps  in  their written version    contended that  the complainant   has purchased  the said  mobile set  on 18.12.2013 and the complainant  has used the said mobile phone for more than 7(seven) years  and the warranty  of his  mobile set  was expired  since  18.12.2014.  In this case  the mobile set  is 8 years old and no way the O.Ps were committed  and deficiency in service  or any unfair trade practice.   It can not be  possible to admit  the same only on the basis  of submission of the complainant.  After the warranty period  the defective  unit   only repair   made in payment  of cost by replacing the defective  spares from the defective unit.  As the  above  set  is more than 8 years old, hence the complainant is not entitled to  get any relief  from this  District commission  without any merit.

The O.Ps  in  their written version   further contended that  the complainant had not  approached the O.P.  for the defect or the defect could not removed from his alleged  set  and also if the service centre   has no knowledge regarding any allegation of defect  of the alleged  set prior  to filing  of this case, then how the cause of action will arise against the O.Ps on absent of knowledge  about any defect of the alleged set.  Further if the complainant fails to produce  any evidence regarding  he has approached to the O.P. (Manufacturer) about non rectification  of the defect from the alleged  set prior to filling this case before forum, then how this complaint  will stand  against  the O.P.  ?  The complainant has not come with clean hands before this forum.   The complainant has not mentioned any date on which day defect persisted in his set and no where he had stated  that on which day & on which way  informed either the O.P.    or the service centre, Rayagada about  non rectification of the defect  from his alleged set.  Also the complainant has no where alleged   that the  Service centre, Rayagada has committed the deficiency in service because the O.Ps are not  the service provider.

The O.Ps are   taking one and another pleas in the written version and had mentioned  a lot of citations of the Apex  courts and   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act.

Now we have to see whether there was any  negligence  on the part of the O.Ps in treating the complainant as alleged ?

We  perused the  documents filed by the complainant  and it  proves that the complainant has purchased a mobile set  from the  O.P.   and after its purchase when the mobile set was found defective the  O.P failed to rectify the defect. The  complainant has approached the service centre  from time to time but  the defects were not removed by the service centre.   At the time of selling their products the O.Ps should ensure that they would provide after sale service to the customer but in this case  the O.Ps sold their produce and failed to give after sale service which is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. At

this stage we hold that  if the mobile set  require service immediately after its purchase then it can be presumed that it is manufacturing  defective   and  if a defective mobile is supplied, the consumer  is entitled to get refund of the price of the product/article  or to replace a new one.  In the instant case as it appears that the mobile set which was purchased by the complainant had developed defects after  using some years   and the O.P No.1 service  centre    after  repair   he  has not intimated the complainant to receive the  same  from the service  centre.

On asking  by the complainant from time to time  the service centre  made some other plea  but not handed over the  same to the complainant  which is  unfair trade practice  on the part  of the  O.P. No.1 service centre.

            It appears that the complainant  invested  a substantial amount and purchased a mobile set  with an exception to have the effective benefit of use of the product but in this case the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of  in using the mobile set for such a long time and the defects were not removed  by the O.Ps .

            .

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed. 

                                                O R D E R

                In  resultant the complaint petition  is allowed  on contest against the O.Ps.

The O.Ps.  are directed  to  refund the  purchase  price of the  above   Samsung mobile set    a  sum of Rs.20,350/-  to the complainant.  The  defective  mobile   set is  now  available  at  Samsung  Service  centre, Rayagada(Odisha).

 

.The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.Service the copies of the order to the parties free of cost.

 

Serve  the copies of the order to the parties as per rule free of cost.

Dictated and  corrected by me.

                Pronounced in the open   Commission   on        18         ^st   day of       December,, 2021.

 

 

                                                                                MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT