PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
Consumer Complaint No.- 188/2024
Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,
Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,
Sri. Shyam Kumar Guru,
S/O- Basudeb Guru,
R/O- Gujurati Colony, Ps-Town,
PO/Dist- Sambalpur, Odisha Pin- 768001.
Mob- 9040509000. ……………..Complainant
Vrs
- Proprietor, Olympus Mobiles,
At- DhuchuraparaChowk, Ps-Town,
Po/Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha-768001.
- Managing Director, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Regd. Office at-6th floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001, India.
- Proprietor, M/S Dibyanshi Samsung Service Centre, Sambalpur,
At- Budharaja in front of Budharaja Petrol Pump, Po-Budharaja, PS- Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha-768004. …….....Opp.Parties
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant :- Sri. S.S.Panda & Associates
- For the O.P. No. :- Ex-parte
- For the O.P.No.2 :- Sri. S.K. Mohanty & Associates
- For the O.P.No.3 :- Mamita Guru
Date of Filing:07.06.2024, Date of Hearing :21.10.2024, Date of Judgement :26.11.2024
Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT
- The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy S-23 Ultra 12/512 GB Mobile from O.P.No.1 for Rs. 1,35,000/-. O.P.No.2 is the Company and O.P.No.3 is the Service provider. In the June 2023 when problem of heating issue arose, the handset was given to O.P.No.3. The handset was returned within hours with assurance that problem is rectified.
On October, 2023 same problem arose, Handset was given to O.P.No.3. Again handset was retuned saying, defects are rectified by O.P.No.3. Third time on 14.02.2023 the handset again shown some problem like not showing apps Samsung Finance Plus, Whatsapp & Phonepe. Handset was given to O.P.No.3. The O.P.No.3 within 10 minutes returned and said it is repaired. But on use, the handset fourth time on 21.02.2023 same problem continued it was placed before O.P.No.3. The Complainant changed his Sim card on his another mobile handset of Samsung A-70 in front of O.P.No.3 and all the application were not working properly in the said Samsung A-70 handset. Service Engineer failed to rectify the defects. On 22.02.2023 when Complainant visited O.P.No.3 the O.P. replied defects are rectified and was issued with a job sheet vide Bill No.4387580372 and handset was kept by O.P.No.3. Complainant demanded previous service history but the O.P.No.3. Complainant demanded previous service history but the O.P.No.3 till date not repaired the handset and handed over to Complainant.
O.P.No.2 was also informed but no any action taken. Repeated defects in mobile handset is due to manufacturing defect and it is within the period of warranty. O.P.No.3 also failed to provide proper service.
- The O.P.No.1 authorised dealer has been set ex-parte.
- The O.P.No.2, manufacturer submitted that all the Complaints have been registered and proper service was given. During period of warranty 17.02.2023 to 17.02.2024 first time complaint made on 21.02.2024. No defect found in the mobile.
The sequence of event are:
17.02.2023 : Handset purchased.
14.02.2024 : Software updated.
17.02.2024 : Warranty expired.
21.02.2024 : Placed before O.P.No.3 alleging some apps not working. On request Complainant denied providing SIM Card. Claim closed with suggestion SIM Card used by the Complainant may be registered under “Do not Distribute/DND” Services, under which the SMS and others functions are blocked to delivered in the service.
07.03.2024 : Complainant visited without SIM Card. ASM & BSM requested to visit to MSC but no allowed.
18.04.2024 : Complainant contacted but busy in election campaigning and confirmed to reschedule his visit after the election.
There is no any manufacturing defect and deficiency in service. The allegations are frivolous and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
- The O.P.No.3 in reply submitted that there is family disputes between Complainant and O.P.No.3 since 2021. To close the service centre with ulterior motive complaint has been filed. The Complainant only visited the O.P.No.3 for first time on 14.02.2024 without any defect and demanded replacement. Complaint was lodged. On 22.02.2024 the Complainant revisited and advised to use security code. Complainant refused to comply. The Complainant departed with job sheet dated 21.02.2024. Thereafter not visited the O.P.No.3 nor retrieved his mobile handset. There is no deficiency on the part of O.P.No.3.
- Perused the documents filed by the parties. The Complainant purchased the mobile handset on 17.02.2023 for Rs. 1,35,000/-. Service request has been made on 21.02.2024 after the warranty period. From mail dated 12.03.2024 it reveals that the Complainant had been to O.P.No.3 on 14.02.2024 and it is admitted by both Complainant and O.P.No.3 that there was exchange of words and misbehave for which the police officers intervened. The Complainant had been to O.P.No.3 within the period of warranty but he was driven out.
The main allegation of the Complainant is that with his SIM Card the handset is not working on certain application like Samsung Finance Plus, Whatsapp and Phonepe. The service Engineer tried to rectify the problems but failed to do so. The O.Ps in other hand submitted that the mobile is free from all defects. All the alleged applications are working inserting the testing SIM and other SIM Cards. The apps were in secured folder. Job card was also issued showing “No issue found”. The allegation of the Complainant is that his SIM Card is not working for the application in the handset.
On 07.10.2024 the O.P.No.3 was directed to produce the handset for demonstration. In presence of Commission SIM No. 9040509000 was inserted but the handset not supported the SIM for which the alleged applications could not work. This is a concrete test that there is defects in the handset. It was previously working but later on when not working contacted the O.P.No.3, job card was issued but no issue found. A customer purchases a handset for different applications and the handset if not provided proper service then the amount spent has no meaning/use. The O.P.No.2 & 3 unable to solve the grievance of the Complainant. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.2 & 3. Dispute relating to family in different than the customer and service provider. The O.P.No.3 failed to provide service within the warranty period and drive the Complainant out to lapse the warranty.
Accordingly, following order is passed:
ORDER
The O.P.No.2 & 3 are deficient in their service as manufacturer and service centre for which mobile handset of the Complainant is inoperative. The O.P.No.2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable for deficient service and liable to refund Rs. 1,35,000/- within one month of this order. In case of non-payment the O.P.No.2 & 3 are to pay interest @7% P.A. w.e.f date of filing of the Complainant. Litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to Complainant. Case is dismissed against O.P.No.1 retailer.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th day of Nov, 2024.
Supply frees copies to the parties.
