Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/80

Md. Rajib - Complainant(s)

Versus

Trisha Mobile Net Prop. Raju Saha And Others. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

02 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  80 of 2014

Md. Rajib
Dhajanagar, Bisalgarh,
District- Sepahijala.         ...............Complainant.
    
         ______VERSUS______

1. Trisha Mobile Net,
Prop. Raju Saha,
Lal Singh Mura Stand,
Bisalgarh, Sipahijala.

2. Samsung Service Centre,
Melarmath, Near Modan Mohan Mandir,
Agartala- 799001,
West Tripura.

3. Samsung Customer Satisfaction,
2nd Floor, Tower-C, 
Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43,
Golf Course Road, Gurgaon,
Haryana-122002.            ............Opposite Parties.
            

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

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

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant         : Sri Basudev Chakraborty and
                  S.H. Ikbal,
                  Advocates. 
                           
For the O.P. No.1        : None Appeared.           
                  
For the O.P. no.2        : Sri Surajit Choudhuri,
                  Advocate.

For the O.P. No.3        : Sri Anupam Paul,
                  Advocate.

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  02.11.15

J U D G M E N T

        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Md. Rajib of Dhajanagar, District – Sipahijala against the O.Ps, namely Trisha Mobile Net and 2 others over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps.
        
2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy Core Mobile set at Rs.13,000/- from the seller, O.P. No.1, Trisha Mobile Net, on 23.06.14. On 12.09.14 for the first time when he operated the music system of the mobile set, automatically it turned off and it did not function further. Immediately he went to the O.P. No.2, Samsung Service Centre, to rectify the defect of the mobile set. On testing of the mobile set, it was told by the O.P. No.2 that the mother board of the mobile set got burnt. They demanded Rs.7,500/- towards repairing charge of the mobile set though it  went out of order during continuance of the period of warranty. He visited the service centre of the company on a number of occasions but they expressed their inability to repair the mobile set unless the money demanded paid by him. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.Ps constituted negligence and deficiency in rendering service. Hence, this complaint.

3.        The O.P. No.1 did not contest the case despite receipt of notice. Hence, the case has been proceeded exparte against the O.P. no.1.
4.        The O.Ps No.2 and 3 recorded appearance through their engaged counsel. The O.P. No.2 filed written objection. Inspite of allowing sufficient time to the O.P. No.3, he did not file written objection.
    
5.        The O.P. No.2, in his written objection, averred that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile set. The mobile set got burnt due to mishandling of the set by the complainant. It is asserted that the complainant failed to produce valid warranty card to establish that the mobile set went out of order during the period of warranty. Further that, there is no warranty for damage of the mother board. It is replaceable /repairable on payment basis only. It is denied that the O.P. No.2 was deficient in rendering service to the complainant in any manner what so ever.    

6.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:
    Exhibit 1- Cash memo dated 23.06.14,
    Exhibit 2- Service request dated 13.09.14.

7.        No primary or secondary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the O.P. No.2.
    Findings:-
8.        The point that would arise for consideration in this proceeding is whether the O.Ps were negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant.
        
9.        We have already heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant meticulously.
    
10.        There is no manner of dispute that the complainant purchased a Samsung  Galaxy Core mobile set from the O.P. No.1 at Rs.13,000/- on 23.06.14. The service request (exhibit-2) indicates that the mobile set in question went out of order on 13.09.14, for which it was produced before the O.P. No.2, Samsung Service Centre, to remove the defect. The O.P. No.2, in his written objection, averred that the mobile set in question went out of order beyond the period of warranty and hence  they were not liable to repair the same free of cost. The O.P. No.2 has not led any evidence in support of the contention made in his pleading. From  the cash memo dated 23.06.14 it is apparent that the warranty of the mobile set was for one year. So, we are unable to accept the contention of the O.P. No.2 that the mobile set went out of order beyond the period of warranty. The complainant in the pleading as well as in his evidence has clearly stated that the mobile set went out of order within 3 months of purchase and when the defective mobile set was placed with the O.P. no.2 for repair, he demanded Rs.7500/- towards repairing charge. The O.P. No.2 has failed to produce any document to show that as per terms of warranty the defective mother board of the mobile set was not repairable/ replaceable even within the period of warranty without payment. In our opinion, the mobile set in question suffered from inherent mechanical defect otherwise it would not have gone out of order within 3 months of purchase. The evidence adduced by the complainant has remained unrebuttal and unshaken since the O.P. No.2 did not lead any evidence to controvert the evidence of the complainant. Until contrary is proved, we are to rely upon the evidence adduced by the complainant. Having gone through the materials on record, we are of the considered opinion that the O.P. No.2 did not do the right thing by not repairing the mobile set free of cost within the period of warranty.  Failure on the part of the O.Ps No.2 & 3 to repair/ replace the mobile set within the period of warranty certainly constituted deficiency in service on their part and hence, the complainant is liable to be compensated by them jointly and severally.
    
11.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complaint is allowed. The O.Ps No.1 & 2 jointly and severally are directed to replace the defective mobile set by a new one or refund the price of the mobile set to the complainant within 45(forty five) days from this day. This apart, they are also directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) to the complainant towards mental anxiety and harassment caused to him by them together with Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) as cost of litigation. In case of failure to pay the amount within the above said period, the amount payable will carry interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made in full.     
           
12.                   A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.