CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

 

CC No.228/10

Thursday the 27th day of January, 2011.

 

Petitioner                                              : Babu Jacob,

                                                             Unity Engine Rebuilding,

                                                             Kodimatha, Kottayam.

 

                                                          Vs.

 

Opposite parties                                   : 1) The Manager,

                                                                  True Value hub shop

                                                                   Drive India Enterprises,

                                                                   Solutions

                                                                   V.C.Mathew Memorial Building

                                                                   K.K. Road, Kottayam.

                                                              2) The Manager,

                                                                    System Info Tech,

                                                                    Samsung Exclusive Service Centre

                                                                     XIV/138A Aswathy Medayil,

                                                                    K.K. Road, Kanjikuzhy.

                                                                3) The Manager,

                                                                     Samsung Electronics & Communication Ltd

                                                                     II,III,IV Floor Tower-C

                                                                     Vipu Tech Sector-43

                                                                     Golf Course Road, Gurgon Hariyana.      

                                                           

                                                                       

                                        

 

Smt. Bindhu. M. Thomas, Member.

 

            The complainant’s case is as follows:

            The complainant purchased a Samsung SCH B 259 [FCC ID – A3 LS PHB 259] mobile phone from the 1^st opposite party for Rs.1900/-. After 8 months of its purchase the battery back up was reduced and it became difficult to use. So the complainant decided to purchase another mobile phone which was more useful as per the direction of the opposite party. On 22/2/10 the complainant purchased another hand set for Rs. 9000/-. But within one week of purchase, the battery back up of the said phone was completely lost within 4 pm of a day and the hand set became switched off in the evening and thus became difficult to use. The said matter was again informed to the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party made some changes in the settings of the said mobile phone and returned it. But the very same battery back up problems persisted. The complainant requested for the replacement of battery and as per the complaint’s request another battery was issued by the opposite parties. Even after replacement of the defective battery the mobile pone exhibited the very same complaints. So the said mobile phone was entrusted to the opposite parties on 28/5/10 and it was examined and returned on 29/5/10. According to the opposite parties the battery back up problems were due to the “Touch Screen” facility provided by the said mobile phone. The opposite parties suggested that the said defect can be rectified by buying an additional battery and charger. As the complainant studied more about the defects of the phone and he understood, that the battery used in Samsung Corby GSM GTS 5603,GT C 3510 and SCHF 339 CDMA set etc is of 960 Mah. According to the complainant the opposite parties should have used a battery having more battery back up in this particular CDMA hand set. The complainant complained to supportindia @samsug.com but there was no response. He again complained to the customer care No.1800 110011, then they directed to contact the Area Sales Manager and behaved in a very rude manner. As the phone was not functioning properly, it affected the works of the complainant’s Automobiles Engine Rebuilding Shop.. As the complainant knew that other companies like Karbon,Videocon, Micromac, Onida etc are supplying mobile phones with a very same functions of the alleged mobile phone in a price which is half of the price spend by the complainant, he lost the trust in the Samsung brand. Hence the complainant filed this complaint praying to direct the opposite parties

i)                    to shop the unfair trade methods adopted by the opposite parties

ii)                   to stop the act of opposite parties in selling low quality CDMA mobile for very high price

iii)                 to make the opposite parties aware that more powerful battery is to be used in a CDMA set

iv)                 to refund the money expended by the complainant

v)                  To pay compensation and cost.

 

            Notice was sent to the opposite parties. But opposite party 1, 2 opposite party 3 were called absent and were set expartee.

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Evidence consists of deposition of the complainant and exts.A1 to A3.

            Heard the complainant and perused the documents placed on record by the complainant. The complainant deposed that he purchased a mobile phone on 22/2/10 for Rs. 9000/-. Evidencing the said purchase the complainant produced a copy of bill dated 22/2/10. As per Ext.A1, the price of the mobile phone is Rs. 9000/-. The complainant further deposed that within one week of purchase the said mobile started showing low battery back up and the said matter was informed to the opposite parties. He again deposed that even though the opposite parties made some setting change, the complaints of the mobile phone persisted. As per the direction of the opposite parties the complainant purchased another battery and evidencing the said purchase the complainant produced a document and it is marked as Ext.A1(a). The complainant next deposed that after the replacement of the battery also the mobile phone showed the very same complaints. The notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party and the postal receipt copy were produced and they are marked as Ext.A2 and Ext.A2(a) respectively. According to the complainant the act of opposite parties in supplying mobile phone having no battery back up is a clear case of unfair trade practice. The complainant alleged that the act of opposite parties in collecting high price and issuing low quality products where other companies like Karbon,Spice, Videocon etc are providing hand sets with similar features for low price is another unfair trade method followed by the opposite parties. As the opposite parties chose not to contest the allegations levelled against the opposite party remain unchallenged. In our opinion supplying low quality products after receiving high price is a clear case of unfair trade practice. The acts of opposite parties in leaving the complainant to such pathetic condition by not repairing the defective mobile set issued to him and thus causing monetary loss and mental tension to the complainant is not justifiable. We find that what had happened would have definitely caused mental agony, loss of use of mobile and monetary loss to the complainant for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate. Point no.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point no.1, the complaint is allowed.

            The 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties will jointly and severally replace the defective mobile phone with a brand new mobile phone of the same model or refund the purchase price of Rs. 9000/- to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.5000/- and litigation cost Rs.1000/-.

            This order will be complied with within one month of the receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of January, 2011.

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-    

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

 

Ext.A1-The purchase order of the warranty certificate copy

Ext.A1(a)Document showing the purchase of battery

Ext.A2-Notice issued by the complainant

Ext. A2(a)Postal receipt copy

Nil

By Order,

 

 

Senior Superintendent.