IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/130/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
27.07.18 03.08.18 25.04.19
Complainant: Md. Abu Tarif
S/O- Lt. Fazlul Haque, Beldanga Natun Pally,
P.O. & P.S.- Beldanga, Dist- Murshidabad,
Pin- 742133.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Call Care, Proprietor Cell Care,
Bazar Bungkawn, Zonal Mizoram.
P.O. & P.S.- Bungkawn, Pin- 796005.
2. Samsung Service Centre,
Prop. Rohit Jain, 26, Ramkrishna Bhattacharya Road,
P.O. & P.S.- Berhampore,
Dist- Murshidabad, Pin- 742101.
3. The Director,
Sumsung Manufacture, 20 to 24th floor,
Two Horizon Centre Golf Course Road,
Sector- 43
Gurgaon- 122002.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Debdatta Ojha.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : None.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 & 3 : Sri. Bandhupriya Dey.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Md. Abu Tarif (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Call Care, Proprietor Cell care and Others (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:
The Complainant purchased one Samsung J7 10 Model Phone from OP No.1 on consideration of Rs.16,000/- on 28.04.17 and the OP No.1 issued the money receipt against the said purchase in favour of the Complainant. From the date of the purchased the Complainant faced the network problem in the said mobile handset. Whenever the Complainant making any call it used to disconnect after a few seconds and most of the time there was no network service. The OP had inserted the Jio sim in the said set as the Samsung J710 4G Volte supported phone. As the complainant was not getting network in the Jio sim later the Complainant inserted Vodafone and Airtel sim in that handset but the same call drop problem and no network signal was found. But to get rid of this problem, the Complainant went to the service center of Kolkata and submitted the said handset and within 2 hours the handset was returned back to the Complainant and the said set was absolutely in good condition and the phone network was providing good but after two days, the same network problem started. After that several times the Complainant went to the service center and the handset was repaired by the service center as the handset was in dispute, The warranty was also extended by the O.P as Samsung Smart Warranty which was issued on 17.07.17 for the period of 28.07.17-27.07.18. But on 27.04.18, the Complainant went to OP No.2 for repair of the said handset for the same network signal problem and no service and no Volte was shown in the said handset. But the said handset was given back to the Complainant with a remark ‘’No Problem Found’’. Again on 18.05.18, the Complainant went to Dhanbad Samsung Service Center to repair the handset with the same problem and the same handset was repaired by the service center free of cost as it was then the warranty period. As the Complainant several times requested the OP No.1 over telephone to replace the handset by a new one as it was defective one but the OP No.1 did not pay any heed. Alleging deficiency on the part of the OP, the Complainant filed the instant case before this Forum for appropriate relief.
After service of the notice, the OP No.1 did not turn up. OP No.2 and 3 filed the written version, contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable as the problem alleged by the Complainant is not the manufacturing problem but the problem is on the network.
OP No.2 in the written version stated that whenever the Complainant came before the OP 2, he extended his full service and support free of cost and the Complainant in feedback form sign in full satisfaction. So, the question of deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 does not arise.
The OP No.3 in the written version stated that the warranty covers only the defects in product arising out of manufacturing or Volte workmanship. The Complainant whenever went to the service center of the OP No.3 at Kolkata, he did not make any allegation relating to non-availability of mobile network while visiting Kolkata. So, such non-availability of mobile network can occur if the concern mobile network service providers does have weak, and/or no network coverage in the particular area .when the Complainant approached before OP No.3 for extention of warrenty before the expiry of the period of July 17,2017 and the same has been extended for a period of one year from, July 28. 2017- July, 27. 2018 as Samsung Smart Warranty. The OP No.3 further stated that the Complainant in the complaint petition failed to mention at which location such non-availability of mobile network occurred after two days of return of the phone by the OP No.3 from their service center. So the case is not maintainable against the OP No.3 and the same is dismissed with cost.
Now the question arises whether the Complainant is a consumer and he entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision With Reason
Admittedly the Complainant purchased a Samsung J710 Model Phone from OP No.1 on consideration of Rs.16,000/- on 28.07.17 with due receipt issued by OP No.1 (vide Annexure-1).But from the date of purchase, the Complainant facing the network problem and visited the Samsung Service Center (OP No.3) and same has been returned back to the Complainant in absolute good condition and the phone network was providing good ( vide Annexure-3). Later on 18.05.18, the Complainant went to Dhanbad Samsung Service Center to repair his handset and the problem has been cured by the service center free of cost as it was then in warranty period. As a purchaser, the Complainant is a consumer and OP is the service provider.
It is clear from the petition of the complaint that the Complainant has repair his handset at Dhanbad Samsung Service Center without paying any cost as it was within the warranty period and till now no problem has occurred in the set.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and documents filed before us and argument advanced by the Ld. Advocated, we find that there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs as they have repair the said phone of the complainant with free of cost and at present there is no problem in the said mobile hand set. Hence, the case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 27.07.18 and admitted on 03.08.18 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.
In the result, the Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/130/201/8 be and the same is hereby dismissed ex-parte without cost against the OP No.1 and dismissed on contest against the OP No. 2 and 3 but without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member President.
