DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KEONJHAR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 10 of 2020
Sri Sitakanta Dwibedi,aged about 47 years
S/O-Late Purna Ch Dwibedi
At-Old Town(Narasinghpur Sasan
Po-Keonjhar Bazar Ps-Town Dist-Keonjhar………………………………………………….Complainant.
Versus
1.Samsung India Eletronics pvt Ltd.
20th to 24th Floor
Two Horizon centre,Golf Course Road sector 43,DLF-PH-V
Gurugaon,Haryan-122202
2.M/S S.S Enterprises Madhapur Square
NH-6,Keonjhar
Prop Sudip kumar Sahoo
S/O-Late Ramesh Ch Sahoo
At-Hundadwar Sahi(Puruna Bazar)
Po-Keonjhar Bazar,Ps-Town
Dist-Keonjhar…………………………………………………………………………………………….Opp Parties.
Present:
Biranchi Narayan Patra, President
Sri Bharat Bhusan Das (Member)
Advocate for complainant- Self
Advocate for Op1 - Manoranjan Nath Sharma
Advocate for Op2 - Chinmaya ku Das
Date of Filing - 02.06.2020 Date of Order- 20.06.2022
B.N Patra (President)
Brief fact of the case :-
The complainant purchased a Samsung Mobile from OP No.2 from the show-room (Authorized dealer )of OP No.1 at Madhapur Square NH-49,Keonjhar.The details of Mobileset-A5075-A5os(Black)6/128351595118968704HSN/SAC-85171290 at a cost of RS.22,502/- On Dtd 05.05.2020 HAVING Invoice No.-3515 dtd.05.05.2020. The complainant complained in his petition that, his Mobile set became discharged shortly and got excessively hot, so also get troubles to operate. Due to such problems the complainant had approached to OP No.2 on dtd.27.05.2020 to know the actual defect. But who all on a sudden but annoyed, did not entertain the complain. That, the Op No-2 lodged a false FIR against the complainant on dtd.27.05.2020 to avoid the request of the above complainant .On which the complainant prays for refund of Rs.22,502/- towards cost of Mobile and compensation of Rs.100000/- and also prays to declare the agency as black listed and prays harassment .
On the above allegation the case was admitted and notice issued to Opp.parties . On reply O.P No.-1 strongly opposed that without any written complain before the Samsung Care or O.Ps , the case is not maintainable and also state that without any expert opinion the case is liable to be dismissed with cost .
On the above circumstances the OP No.2 strongly objects in his written version that without any complain before the Samsung Care and without any Job-card/ Expert opinion the case is liable to dismissed and also alleged that the complainant assaulted staff of OP No.-2 in his show-room and also with his relatives the complainant destroyed the show-room of OP No.-2 , for which the criminal case is pending against the complainant .
On the above situation following issues are framed:-
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
2. Whether the case is bad for limitation?
3. Whether any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops for defective mobile ?
4. What is the proof behind any criminal case started between the parties?
5. What relief is complainant entitled to?
Issue No.-1
The complainant had purchased a Samsung Mobile from Op No.-2, the dealer of Samsung Mobile with proper money receipt for his own use at the cost of Rs.22,502/- on dtd.05.05.2020, so No doubt he is a consumer .
Issue No.-2
That, the date of purchase on 05.05.2020 and the case is filed on dtd.02.06.2020.So the case is filed within stipulated period prescribed by law i.e within the limitation period 2 years .
Issue No.-3 & 4
As per the statement of the complainant it is cleared that the Mobile phone became discharged shortly and got excessively hot, so also get troubles to operate. It was the first right of consumer to give written complain before the Ops for manufacturing defect .Any service complain about the Mobile set under warranty period not received by OP No.1 & Op. No.-2 or Samsung Care ,so there is no deficiency of service or Unfair Trade practice from the side of Ops . Only a criminal case and counter criminal case was filed before the town police station Keonjhar regarding the mobile defect between complainant & Op-2. In this situation criminal case is not disposed off and there is no relation of consumer complaint with criminal case and it is still pending in the criminal court. So issue no 3 and 4 is clear.
Issue No-5
What relief the complainant is entitled to ?
In this context it is the duty of commission to see whether any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service occurred by the Ops .There is no expert opinion regarding the defective mobile. Complainant has not complained in proper manner before the Ops to get service. So he is not entitled to get relief.
So, the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case without any technical expert report.
As per provision of CP Act 1986 and in this respect the answering Op Parties relied on a decision, M/S Video cone International limited VS K Vijiyan & Other 1999 (1) C.P Act CPR-20. Where in it has been held on commission that for replacement of the product the defect must be manufacturing and for proving manufacturing defect expert report essential.
ORDER
In view of the above submission the complainant has failed to prove prima facie case against the Op Parties. The case of complainant is dismissed without any cost.
The order pronounced in open Commission today i.e on 20.06.22.
Free copy be supplied to parties, if applied for.
Pronounced on 20.06.2022
I agree
( Sri B. B. Das) ( B.N Patra )
Member (President)
DCDRC,Keonjhar DCDRC,Keonjhar
Dictated & Corrected by
( B.N Patra )
(President)
DCDRC,Keonjhar
