Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that she purchased one Samsung Galaxy (Dous) model No. GT-I 8262, Sl. No. RZ1DA5ZZZNHY, IMEI No. 35708910518934037 & 35709010518934315, Colour – Metallic Blue with Battery, Charger cum Data Cable, 1 Ear Phone, Month & Year of Manufacture – Oct. 2013 from S.H. Mumtazuddin Times (P) Ltd. on payment of Rs. 12,250/- on 28.11.2013. But the phone started hanging badly from the 2nd month of purchase and she visited to Mumtazuddin from whom he purchased the phone. They sent her to the service center Esplanade as the said service center was the nearest service center. So she went there and service center checked and told her how to update this software and after one month she faced same problem and they even mentioned that it is further a software problem. Then the complainant asked it to update so that this problem would not arise.
In the month of May the complainant faced the different problems i.e. speaker damage, black out, automatically off, the charger pin bent and not taking charge and so she went to Esplanade service center 5 to 6 times with the above problem. But she did not get any assurance of service and had to spend an hour for the mobile repairing. She demanded to the service center for replacing of the mobile set by giving her mobile and charger to them on 05.06.2014 and it is in their custody.
Even she called Sunil Kumar Bansal, the Senior Executive who was informed about the matter. But he overlooked her problem though she showed them problems of the handset and if actually there is no problem for what reason she went to service center 5 to 6 times but they specifically mentioned that there is no technical problem. So there is no question of replacement of the mobile. After that she sent email on 13.06.2014 but got the same reply. Then again in detail she emailed him on 14.06.2014 asked him to give the detail of the dates of submission of her mobile to the service center and the addresses and again explained him her problem but they plainly replied that they could not fulfill this demand and they called her also and said over phone.
Thereafter she called the consumer care and the agents asked her to send one reminder cum legal notice to both the places, service center and Samsung Head Office and she sent both this notices on 16.06.2014 by Speed Post about the problem and gave the 10 days duration to sort out this problem and replace the mobile. But the Esplanade service center sent letter dated 18.06.2004 – statingthat up after completion of in-warranty repairs of carrying product.
On 23.06.2014 and 27.06.2014 complainant demanded replacement only and the Samsung Head Office did not send any letter and they called her up from their number and told that they cannot replace mobile. So, she asked them to reply in hard copy. But they said np they called over phone and asked the complainant to receive the mobile from the service center because it has already been repaired and okay but they are not responsible for this for keeping it with the manufacturer. But she said that it was a formality because consumer care asked her to send and she knew the answer and she was informed that they cannot replace it. But the service center did not take any responsibility and both the service center and Sunil Kumar Bansal harassed the complainant in so many manner because in his busy life she had to spend an hour in service center and tried to call the Senior Executive of Samsung Head Office.
In the above circumstances, complainant has prayed for replacement of the said mobile for causing harassment and for not functioning of the said mobile for several period and for not giving any such guarantee about future function of the said set.
On the other hand op no.1 by filing written version submitted that the set was examined by the engineer and gave reply that no such problem was found as reported and the set was found O.K. after servicing and thereafter op no.1 requested to take back the mobile phone but the complainant insisted for replacement which was not accepted by the op no.1 and as such the complainant filed the instant complaint and they have specifically stated that after proper testing not technical fault was found for which there was no requirement for replacement or for refund of sale price and in fact complainant willingly did not take back it for some reasons for some period.
Fact remains that after purchasing mobile, the set was used by the complainant for 7/8 months without any problem that means the mobile set had or has no inherent defects or manufacturing defect and in the above circumstances the present complaint should be dismissed and for the purpose of getting refund money this case is falsely filed and prayed for dismissal of this case but other ops did not appear to contest even after getting notice.
Decision with reasons
On proper consideration of the entire materials, it is found that complainant has tried to convince that she has suffered very much after purchasing the said set on 20.11.2013. Fact remains that this complaint was ultimately filed on 10.07.2014 i.e. after lapse of 9 months from the date of purchase of the said handset.
Truth is that handset is within the custody of the complainant and complainant received it after repairing. But it is allegation of the complainant that time to time the said set has been creating problem and complainant is unable to use it. But anyhow about the manufacturing defect, there is no material. But considering the grievance of the complainant, we find that it would be proper and just to direct the service center including the company op no.1 to make it free from all defects if any and make it regularly usable by the complainant and handover a certificate that it is free from manufacturing defects and at the same time op no.1 shall have to give further warranty for one year. So that complainant may time to time get service from the op no.1 and his service center. Apparently this order is passed only to give satisfaction to the complainant so that she may use the said set with such warranty for another one year and no doubt it is the duty of the company to give satisfaction to the customer and that is the corporate social responsibility and invariably this Forum hopes that op no.1 the Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and it’s service center shall give proper service to the complainant as and when complainant would appear before them with any problemrelated to said set.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
Accordingly this complaint is disposed of by passing such order and thus this complaint is allowed in part on contest against the op no.1 with cost of Rs. 2,000/- and said cost shall be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
Complainant is directed to handover the said set to the op no.1 or his service center and op no.1 and his service center shall have to make it usable running and make it just like a new one and handover on proper receipt to the complainant along with one copy of extended warranty for one year from this day and also a certificate to that effect that there is no manufacturing defect in respect of the said handset.
Op nos.1 and 2 are directed to comply this order very strictly and to submit a completion report after lapse of one month.
But the case against op no.3 is dismissed exparte without any cost.
The entire judgement shall be properly complied by the op nos. 1 & 2 positively and without any fail otherwise penal action shall be started against that i.e. op nos. 1 & 2 for which ops are prosecuted u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 and in that case op nos.1 & 2 shall pay a penal damage of Rs. 20,000/- to this Forum.
