Karnataka

StateCommission

A/573/2023

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SRI. NOORULLA KHAN - Opp.Party(s)

T N Ramesh

10 Apr 2023

ORDER

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE.
 
First Appeal No. A/573/2023
( Date of Filing : 24 Mar 2023 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 31/01/2023 in Case No. CC/1002/2020 of District Bangalore 3rd Additional)
 
1. SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD
20 to 24th Floor Two Horizon Center Golf Course Road Sector-43, DLF PH-V GURGAON - 122 202 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. SANDEEP SAHIJWANI
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SRI. NOORULLA KHAN
S/o Sri. Ahamadulla Major No: 54, Basaveshwara Layout Nagashettihalli BENGALURU-560 094.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar JUDICIAL MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 10 Apr 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Dtd.10.04.2023                                            A/573/2023

O R D E R

       HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

  1.    This is an appeal filed U/s.41 of CPA 2019 by OP.1/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.31.01.2023 passed in CC/1002/2020 on the file of 3rd Addl., District Commission, Bengaluru.
  2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard. Accordingly found satisfied to dispense with issuance of appeal notice.
  3. It is not in dispute that the Complainant had purchased mobile hand set on 01.12.2019 and till 9 months it was used without any repair issue. However on 07.08.2020 & 25.08.2020 it was given for repair which is within the warranty period, and the same was carried out and handed over to the Complainant on 17.08.2020 & 04.09.2020 respectively. The Commission below examining the jobcard, held that, expert opinion is not necessary since the said jobcard itself speaks about the alleged defects made by the Complainant, is suffice to hold, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.1. Accordingly, Commission below directed OP.1 to pay a sum of Rs.79,999/- with interest at 9% p.a. subject to return of defective mobile handset and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency in service and litigation cost. However, the Commission below, although made mention of the fact that, customer is eligible to get refund to an extent of 70% of mobile value, and even though mobile has been used for more than 9 months, ordering OP.1 to pay entire value of handset is not just and proper. As such, it would be appropriate that, Commission below would have directed the OP.1 to refund the amount to an extent of 70% of mobile value. With such observation, we feel it proper to remand back the matter to the Commission below to pass appropriate order as observed as early as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of this order.   
  4. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.

 

Lady Member             Judicial Member              President      

 

 

*NS*     

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar]
JUDICIAL MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.