CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 15th day of April, 2016
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing: 14/10/2015
: SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN
CC /144/2015
Shaji Babu.V,
S/o.Velayudhan.C,
Chipralayam, Nedumkode, : Complainant
Chittur, Palakkad,Kerala -678 101
(Paarty in person)
Vs
1. Authorized Signatory,
Samsung Customer Satisfaction,
2nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square,
Sector-43, Golf Course, Gurgaon, : Opposite parties
Haryana – 122 002
(exparte)
2. The Manager,
Central Police Canteen,
Kallekadu, Palakkad.
(By Adv.K.A.Stanly James)
3. Authorized Signatory,
Samsung Customer Service Center,
Blue Point, HPO Road, Palakkad.
(exparte)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The complainant bought a mobile phone (Samsung Galaxy A7, IMEI 359926/06/146760/4, IMEI 359926/06/146760/2) from Central Police Canteen, Palakkad on 28/09/2015 as per the bill No.21164-2015. When he tried to insert sim card he noticed that the display of phone is not fixed properly and because of that display detached from the phone body. On the next day i.e. on 29/09/2015 he complained about it to the Central Police Canteen Officials. They replied that they cannot do anything in this case and they asked him to contact Samsung Customer Care Office. Accordingly he contacted the Samsung Customer Care Office, Blue Point, Palakkad, Kerala. He asked them to replace the handset but they were not prepared for that. They gave a written reply stating that “As per the Samsung Procedure, the phone box is not containing IMEI stickers and moreover customer is not willing to give the phone to the centre for service. So that I am not able to provide our best service to our esteemed customer”. The complainant submits that he couldn’t submit IMEI stickers because it was fixed on the opening part of the box. He couldn’t open the box without damaging IMEI stickers. They fixed the display without his permission. He was not satisfied from their service. The very next day he submitted IMEI stickers with the box. But the service centre still told him that they cannot replace the phone and could only do further service of the phone perfectly. The complainant states that he don’t want to service the phone but he needs a new phone. He contacted the customer satisfaction centre of Samsung and they told that they can replace the phone as per the Samsung procedure. He sent two complaints one to the Samsung Customer Satisfaction Centre and the other to the Central Police Canteen on 01/10/2015 through speed post. The Police Canteen officials informed him that the Samsung company will replace the phone. Later on the Samsung company officials called the complainant over telephone and asked him to contact the Samsung customer service centre, Blue point again. Accordingly he visited the customer service centre and handed over the phone to the Samsung customer service officials on 09/10/2015. But he has not received any reply from any of them. The complainant alleges that he bought this new phone because he had lost his old phone before one month. He had paid Rs.21,638.95 towards its cost. He had spend a lot of time for getting it replaced which affected its daily routine and duties. So he had approached before this forum seeking an order to grant Rs.96,638/- as compensation including cost of the phone and compensation for time and money expended for this purpose.
The notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance. 2nd opposite party entered appearance and filed their version. Opposite parties 1 and 3 remained absent inspite of accepting the notice. Hence they were called absent and set exparte. 2nd opposite party submitted that complainant had purchased a Samsung Galaxy A7 mobile phone from them. Mobile phone was given in a sealed packet with IMEL stickers in as such condition given by the manufacturer of the mobile phone Samsung. While taking delivery of phone, the complainant has no complaint against the 2nd opposite party as tampering of seal or IMEL sticker in the packet or any defects. The averments in the complainant about the phone after delivery are ignorant to the 2nd opposite party and are denied by them. On 01/10/2015 the 2nd opposite party received a complaint from the complainant regarding damages caused to the phone and that the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party to rectify the defects. The 2nd opposite party replied to the complainant stating that they had taken necessary steps with the Samsung company to replace the defective mobile phone. Further it was directed in reply to the complainant, that in future all matters with regard to this phone shall be done through 2nd opposite party and not to contact the authorities at the service centre. Only from the copy of the complaint received from this Forum, the 2nd opposite party came to understand that, contrary to the direction given by them in replied letter, the complainant entrusted the phone with Samsung customer service centre. The 2nd opposite party has not seen the mobile phone after delivery on 28/09/2015 and is not liable for the willful acts of the complainant contrary to the direction given by the 2nd opposite party. On receipt of complaint from the complainant dtd.01/10/2015 a reply was given to the complainant stating that steps are taken by them with the manufacturer of phone Samsung to replace the defective phone. There is no deficiency of service, unfairness or arbitrariness on the part of the 2nd opposite party and he is not liable to compensate the complainant. Hence the complaint against the 2nd opposite party has to be dismissed.
Complainant and 2nd opposite party filed their respective chief affidavits. Ext.A1-A3 was marked from the part of the complainant and Ext.B1-B4 was marked from the part of the 2nd opposite party. The evidence was closed and the matter was heard.
The following issues are to be considered.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite
Parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
ISSUES 1 & 2
We had perused the documents as well as affidavits filed before the Forum. It is obvious from Ext.A1 that the service centre had endorsed the acknowledgement receipt that the display is shaking. The complainant had also stated in the affidavit that he had handed over the mobile phone and the bill before the 3rd opposite party for getting it replaced, as per the direction of Samsung Customer Service Officials. From Ext.B1-B4 it can be inferred that the 2nd opposite party had taken earnest efforts to get it replaced for the complainant. Hence we could not attribute any deficiency of service on the part of 2nd opposite party and 2nd opposite party is exonerated from the liability. Since the opposite parties 1 and 3 were absent and set exparte the complaint is allowed against opposite parties 1 and 3.
Hence we direct the opposite parties 1 and 3 jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.21,638/- (Twenty one thousand six hundred and thirty eight only) being the cost of mobile phone purchased along with Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant. We also direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards cost of this litigation. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within 1 month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the said amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of April, 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/- Suma. K.P
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1- Acknowledgement of service request dtd.09/10/2015. (Original)
Ext.A2- Acknowledgement receipt of petition dtd.01/10/2015. (Original)
Ext.A3- Letter from Manager, Subsidiary Central Police Canteen, Palakkad dtd.05/10/2015. (Original)
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1-Copy of petition dtd.01/10/2015 by the complainant addressed to the 2nd OP.
Ext.B2-Copy of letter dtd.04/10/2015 by the 2nd OP addressed to Mr.Francis Paul Vinod.
Ext.B3-Copy of letter dtd.04/10/2015 by the 2nd OP to Mr.Nitin Batra.
Ext.B4-Copy of letter dtd.05/10/2015 by the 2nd OP to the complainant
Witness marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost Allowed
Rs.2,000/- as cost.
