DCDRC Baramulla solves 08 years old Case of Complainant

Rs. 30k fine/ other Penalties imposed on Opposite Parties

BARAMULLA, JUNE 10: In a significant development, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) Baramulla has solved 08 years old case filed before the erstwhile District Consumer Forum Baramulla under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 by complainant Irshad Ahmad Sheikh against the Sopore Electronics and Samsung Service Care Centre Baramulla by imposing a fine of Rs 30,000 and other penalties.

It is worth mentioning here that soon after the establishment of DCDRC Baramulla, the long pending cases of people are initiated and the proceedings on different litigations/cases are carried out for early redressal.

With regard to the case, DCDRC Baramulla has issued an order stating that a complaint has been filed before the erstwhile District Consumer Forum Baramulla way back in the year 2015 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which could not be adjudicated till the establishment of the DCDRC Baramulla.

The facts to the present Complaint are that Irshad Ahmed Sheikh (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant in the instant Complaint) has averred that he purchased a mobile phone model Samsung galaxy 7262 from Sopore Electronics main Chowk Sopore on 07/07/2014, against the payment of Rs. 5900 but after few days the said mobile could not function.

The Complainant has contended that he approached the Samsung service centre Baramulla on 20/07/2014, for repairs of the defective mobile phone, although the service centre formatted the memory card but the mobile phone could not function. Thereafter he approached the said service centre again on 25/07/2014, but neither the mobile phone was repaired nor it was replaced by the Opposite Party.

The Complainant has further contended that since at the time of purchasing the mobile phone he was a student of Kashmir University and has purchased mobile to help him in studies but his hopes to improve performance in the academics were shattered as he could not afford to buy a new mobile phone, which constrained him to approach to Consumer Court for redressal of his grievances.

Alleging to be a case of deficiency of services, the Complainant prayed for appropriate direction to the Opposite parties for replacement of the mobile phone and the compensation of an Amount of Rupees One Lac, for loss of time, strain and stress caused to the Complainant.

“Notices were issued to the Opposite Parties but none appeared despite services and they were accordingly preceded Ex Parte.”

The Complainant submitted the defective Mobile Phone before the Court and adduced himself as Witness in person besides he adduced another person as Witness Haroon Rashid. ‘The Witness stated before the Court that the Complainant purchased a Mobile phone from Sopore Electronics, Main Chowk Sopore, which became non-functional within two days. He approached the Samsung Service Centre Baramulla for repairs of the said defective phone.

Though the Service Centre rectified the defective Mobile phone but the Mobile phone could not function again which constrained the complainant to approach the Consumer Court for redressal of his grievance, said the Witness person.

After going through the case file and the documents placed on record, the Commission is of the considered view that the sole grouse of the Complaint is that the mobile in question developed the defects within the Warranty period and the mobile phone was not repaired by the concerned Service Centre and it was upon the Opposite Parties to either rectify the defects of the mobile phone to the satisfaction of the Complainant or to refund the amount paid by the complainant but the Opposite Parties have not bothered to resolve the genuine grievances of the Complainant.

Consequent on the above facts, the opposite parties are guilty of indulging in unfair trade practices, for selling a defective phone and then failing to repair it, the order reads.

Clearing the case with the above circumstances, the Complaint is allowed and disposed-off with the directions that the Opposite Parties are directed to replace the defective Mobile Hand set of the Complainant; the Opposite Parties are further directed to pay a compensation of an amount of Rs 30,000 to the Complainant for causing mental agony, harassment and financial loss; reads the order issued by DCDRC.

The order further reads that the Opposite Parties shall comply the orders jointly within the period of 30 days failing which the compensation amount shall carry the interest of 9% per annum from the date of default till its realization.