Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he purchased one mobile set of Haier, Model No. CG300, Color-Black, SKU – HSHRO4K1ZZZZ, RSN. RHRHSC000236017, S/N – EAOFE0100E5D610517, IMEI – 864936010157675, MEID – A1000025A8EB33, MSN – MHIRC0000023602 from the shop of Reliance World-Kalakar Street, Kolkata on payment of Rs. 2,425/- on 13.12.2013.
Since after purchase the said set showed different types of problems and it was found automatically off, last call list not shown and always showing head phone mode etc. but due to work pressure of the complainant, he could not go to service centre just after purchase.
On 18.04.2014 without coping up with the problem anymore he went to the Authorised Service Centre, the Proforma op no.3 at Srirampore and they asked to handover the defective set to them on that date and accordingly it was handed over to them on proper receipt i.e. job sheet and assured that the phone would get return after two weeks. But after two weeks when enquired over phone, ops told that the set had not yet repaired till that time and the set had been sent to Head Office at Delhi. But after repeated enquiry long after about one and half month they delivered the said set. But again after one week it was switched off and it could not be switched on further.
So, again on June 2014 complainant contacted with the service centre and asked them to replace the same by a new one and the service centre told that after giving full sets of mobile box they only could do that and again said that the set could not be returned within 10 days. Thereafter some days when complainant went to the ops with full sets of mobile box to op no.3, they told that they left the service of the Haier Mobile because the Company did not cooperate with them by supplying the parts and they also said that as per the Company’s instruction the Company’s wish to remain in the market likewise and further they told to contact with the Retail shop from where it was purchased.
After one week when complainant went to that shop, he found that the shop had no existence and without getting any other alternative, complainant again contacted with another Service Centre i.e. op no.1 and op no.1 also took enquiry after two weeks and gave a job sheet and it is very important that after two days complainant found that in the job sheet in the portion of customer name, there was a mistake done by op no.1 and there was another name i.e. Mohan Mallick, address is Khardaha, 24 Parganas and his Mobile No. is 9331850404 and dealer name was also different.
But at the time of receiving the job sheet that was overlooked by the complainant’s wife because of her heavy work. But fault was reported by the customer that date and serial number is not complainant’s mobile set. Soon after observing the mistake, complainant contacted with the op no.1 but op no.1 refused to correct the said mistake and the job sheet which remained as it is but op no.1 disclosed that at the time of receiving the mobile, they would take the job sheet and there would be no problem in future to take the set by the op no.1.
But after two weeks complainant contacted with the op no.1 over phone and learnt that the set was not ready and that was sent to Delhi Head Office and according to Head Office, the parts were not available till that date so the set could not be repaired. Again when complainant asked the service centre about the set, they told the same story. Complainant asked the op no.1 to return the set but op told that they had nothing to do and also told to contact the Head Office over phone.
Thereafter complainant repeatedly tried to talk with Head Office but no result was received. Again complainant requested op no.1 over phone to give any other contact number but service centre op no.1 did not help or did not supply the phone number and in such manner, complainant since purchase is being deprived by the op no.1 including manufacturer and finding no other alternative and without getting service complainant lost his faith over the such manufacturer including such dealer for which the complainant has prayed for refund of the entire purchase amount and for getting relief from the manufacturing company including the service centre and also prayed for compensation.
Op no. 2 by filing written statement submitted that the entire complaint is false and fabricated but admitted fact is that complainant purchased the same and it was submitted to the service Centre. Admitted fact is that initially it was not possible to repair it and further it is submitted that the complainant for the purpose of creating such story to get the refund of money, all such sort of allegations are made. They have also admitted that wrong job sheet was supplied to the complainant’s wife. But op no.1 assured her that it will not create any problem and for which they have prayed for dismissal of this case.
Further op no.1 has submitted that the new set can be replaced and op no.1 after receipt of this complaint talked with the complainant but the complainant refused to accept the new set. So, there was no responsibility on the part of the op’s and fact remains that the entire complaint is baseless for which it shall be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
On overall evaluation of the entire complaint, written version and also the admitted fact that complainant purchased the mobile set on 13.12.2013 and truth is that till filing of this complaint on 18.09.2014, the said manufacturer of the mobile did not work and it was submitted to its service centre of the Haier but no fruitful result was achieved and all the service centre informed the complainant or his wife that the said set had been sent to Delhi and till its receipt by the service centre it cannot be returned or replaced. Then question is whether the purchaser shall have to wait for one year for repairing of the said set on payment of good money. Then invariably it is clear that service centre as selected by the company are all worthless and hopeless service centre.
At the time of argument one agent of the manufacturing company submitted that company has its liability to repair it. Then our question is why a set shall be sent for repeated repairing just after purchase? Then invariably there are certain defects and truth is that when a customer has any liking with any brand and if said brand causes mental pain and agony at the time of using the same, invariably in that case there is a chance for changing brand for some other sets in respect of brand when that is the fact, then invariably it is the duty of the Forum not to create pressure upon the complainant and also his liking choice regarding non-accepting a new set because truth is that complainant within last one year did not get any relief either from the service centre or manufacturing company. But all good gestures are not shown by the ops and the manufacturing company before receipt of this complaint. So we are convinced to hold that negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the manufacturer including service centre is proved. Further it is proved that in all the cases all the service centres are very much reluctant to give relief to the customers as per warranty and it is their business to harass the customers stating that matter has been sent to the manufacturer and when it shall be resolved then the matter shall be sent to the customer. Fact remains that in France, America, Canada, England, there is a mandatory provision and someother law that if after purchase of any article, if it is found that it is not being used in that case the service center and manufacturer are liable to refund the money or if customer’s choice to get a new one handover the same but time shall be within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said defective item. But in India after globalization, foreign companies have entered into the market but they are only for the purpose of selling their damaged items to poor Indian people without giving them any satisfaction about their service or any certificate to that effect that there is no manufacturing defect in the item sold.
Fact remains that this is not the first instance regarding such sort of complaint by the consumer. But there are so many complaints of such a nature which had been handled by this Forum and Forum always honours the choice of the customer (Complainant) and in all cases, all the manufacturing companies have refunded the money as per choice of the customer (complainant) and in this case we have found that complainant does not want to get such a set because he has bitter experience of such sort of brand. Though with an hope he purchased it on payment of such brand but any how he lost his faith on the ground after purchase till filing of the case he did not get any relief or redressal from the op.
So, in the above circumstances we are of view that allegation of negligent and deficient manner of service of the manufacturer and service centre is well proved so we inclined to hold that the complaint should be allowed by directing the ops to refund the entire amount, compensation and litigation cost.
In the result, the complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the op nos. 1 & 2 with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- and same is dismissed against op no.3 without any cost.
Ops are directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 2,425/- and also compensation of Rs. 2,500/- to the complainant for not giving any service even after purchase of the same and causing mental pain and agony and sufferings of the complainant, for failing to use that handset and to get good conduct of the ops.
Op nos. 1 & 2 are hereby directed to comply the order and to pay the total sum of Rs. 9,925/- ( Rs. 5,000/- cost + Rs. 2,425/- price of the mobile + Rs. 2,500/- as compensation) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order, op nos. 1 & 2 shall have to pay penal interest at the rate Rs. 200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum and if any case ops are reluctant to comply the Forum’s order, in that case penal proceeding u/s 27 of the C.P. Act 1986 shall be started for which they shall be prosecuted.
