Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

514/2007

G.Arunachalam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Samsung Telecommunications (I) Pvt Ltd and 2 o - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

10 Jan 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 26.11.2007

                                                                          Date of Order : 10 .01.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

CC. NO.514/2007

WEDNESDAY THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018

G. Arunachalam,

B-2, Shanthi Manor,

Opp. To Raja Kalyana Mandapam,

170 Kutchery Road,

Mylapore, Chennai – 4.                                           .. Complainant.

 

                                      ..Vs..

 

1.  Customer Care Manager-Mobile Phones,

M/s. Samsung Telecommunications (1)

Pvt. Ltd.,

85/1, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,

Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

 

 

2. The Sales Manager,

M/s. Drive India Enterprise Solutions

Limited,

No.2,3 & 4 Thiru Vi Ka Road,

Mount Road,

Chennai 600 014

 

3. Customer Service Manager,

M/s. Samsung Telecommunications (1)

Pvt. Ltd.,

3^rd Floor, Chemtex House,

Hirnanndani Gardens,

Mumbay 76.                                                           .. Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for complainant           :  M/s. Av.K.Ezhilmani & another

Counsel for opposite parties     :  M/s. V.V.Giridhar

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of  Rs.5499/- towards cost of the mobile and also to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that he purchased a mobile phone on 17.10.2007 from the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.5499/-.    The  complainant state that on the very next the complainant experienced charging problem and the complainant took the mobile phone to M/s. Drive  India Enterprise Solutions and was rectified.   Thereafter there was call disconnect and display problems arise for which the complainant took the mobile phone to the Samsung Service Centre  on 30.10.2007 while opening the phone the technician Mr.Ravi informed that there is  a "Water Log' Problem".   On 1.11.2007  there was no display for that the technician Ravi told that the board needs to be replaced and the mobile has to be sent to Bangalore for due rectification.     The Service Engineer showed one Mr. Chaithenia who contacted his superior and request for replacement  the board.    The opposite party opened the mobile phone and hand over the sim card to the complainant and kept  the mobile for service.  Even after repeated requests and communications the opposite parties has not responded properly.   Hence the complainant was constrained to approach another unit on 7.11.2007.    The complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the cost of the mobile phone.   Since the opposite parties has not complied the request.   As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. 

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite parties is as follows:

The  opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite parties submit that  it is true that complainant had purchased on 17.10.2017 a mobile phone of his choice and brought it to 1^st opposite party with charging problem on 31.10.2007.  It was explained shown and pointed out that the defect of liquid lodged to the complainant who took back his mobile after general  cleaning was done, hence the question of problem occurred at factory is wholly imaginative.   The problem of water logging was again complained of with no display.    The mobile phone on inspection by opposite parties Engineer suggested replacement of board to be sent and done at Bangalore office only.   The opposite parties further state that on acceptance by complainant, after handing over sim card and job card copy the mobile was taken up for repairs therefore the blatant allegation that denial of complainant’s request for replacement pretence by Chaitaniya  Floor Manager and the refusals, complained of our whole baseless.    The claims made are mere ferrite imagination and excessive without any basis or documents.    Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A.3 marked.  Proof affidavit of the  opposite parties filed and no documnets  marked on the side of the  opposite parties.

4.  The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5499/- towards the cost of the Mobile phone?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

5.   POINTS 1 & 2:

        Admittedly the complainant purchased a mobile phone on 17.10.2007 from the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.5499/-.    The contention of the complainant is that on the very next the complainant experienced charging problem and the complainant took the mobile phone to M/s. Drive  India Enterprise Solutions and was rectified.   Thereafter there was call disconnect and display problems arose for which the complainant took the mobile phone to the Samsung Service Centre  on 30.10.2007 while opening the phone the technician Mr.Ravi informed that there is  a "Water Log' Problem".   On 1.11.2007  there was no display for that the technician Ravi told that the board needs to be replaced and the mobile has to be sent to Bangalore for due rectification.     The Service Engineer showed one Mr. Chaithenia who contacted his superior and request for replacement of the board.   While issuing job card the complainant made his observation regarding the defect.  But  employees of the opposite parties objected and refused to hand over the job card.  The opposite party opened the mobile phone and hand over the sim card to the complainant and kept  the mobile for service.  Even after repeated requests and communications the opposite parties has not responded properly.   Hence the complainant was constrained to approach another unit on 7.11.2007.   The complainant requested the opposite parties to arrange or refund the cost of the mobile phone.   Since the opposite parties has not complied the request.   The complainant was constrained to file this case.          

6.     The contention of the opposite parties 1 & 3  is that the complainant was duly explained and pointed out that the defect of liquid lodged in the mobile phone to the complainant who took back the mobile after general clearing was done.   The mobile was inspected by the Engineer and suggested replacement of board and the mobile should be sent to Bangalore office.   The complainant accepted for sending the mobile phone to Bangalore  after receiving the sim card and job card.  The allegation against the Chaitaniya Floor Manager and the employees of the opposite parties are baseless.    The email  vide Ex.A3 sent by the opposite party will show very clear that the opposite parties took steps for replacement of mother board and stand by handset and it is ready for delivery.  The complainant did not attend the calls and has not come forward to took delivery of the mobile.   On the other hand as an email stating that the complainant is taking steps for filing appropriate consumer complaint.   There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. But the opposite parties has not taken steps to return the mobile phone within the reasonable time after due rectification of defects.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.5499/- towards cost of the complaint mentioned mobile phone and shall pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.2,000/- and the points are answered accordingly.  No order as against the 2^nd opposite party.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.5499/- (Rupees Five thousand four hundred and ninty nine only) towards cost of the complaint mentioned mobile phone  and shall pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards mental agony with cost of Rs.2,000/-  (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant.    

The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

          Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of January 2018. 

MEMBER –I                                                                           PRESIDENT.

COMPLAINANT’S SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1- 3.11.2007   - Copy of email by complainant.

Ex.A2- 13.11.2007 – Copy of email by opposite parties.

Ex.A3-                - Copy of mail communication.

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  .. Nil..

 

MEMBER –I                                                                           PRESIDENT.