Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/495/2014

Ashwini A Lengade - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung Customer Satisification - Opp.Party(s)

P.B. Patil

15 Jun 2015

ORDER

O R D E R

Smt. S.S. Kadrollimath, Member

1.      The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to replace the mobile hand set and damages for mental agony and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.      The case of the complainant is that, the complainant is an social worker and she need of mobile as her earlier handset was damaged and hence she thought of purchasing new mobile hand set. The complainant approached respondent 2 for purchase of mobile hand set and she purchased mobile handset on 20/1/2014 Samsung Mobile Model No.7262 IME No. 359717054580895, S/N: RZ1DC2XM5RP, Battery-AA1DB18YS/2-B, Charger: RC8DC11A S/5-E with one year warranty for Rs.6600/-. After purchase of the handset, within 2-3 days the screen was not swapping immediately the complainant brought to the notice to respondent 2. The respondent 2 did not made any efforts to repair the handset nor replace the handset. Hence the complainant gave legal notice to the respondent No.1 & 2 but the after notice is being served these respondents, then also they have not complied to the said notice nor replace the mobile hand set. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint. The complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.      In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondent.1 appeared through advocate. While the respondent No.2 despite service of notice remained absent. Hence, R-2 placed exparte. The respondent.1 filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments in toto and prays for dismissal of the complaint. Further the answering respondent contended that R-1 is being manufacture of the product. Further he contended that complaint is pre matured since the complainant has not approached the authorized service centre before filing the complaint. The contention of R-1 with regard to alleged swapping problem it may arised due to software problem or due to touch screen problem. If the problem is of software issue, then after upgrading software the problem will be resolved.  If the problem due to touch screen, than after changing the screen the problem will be solved. But the without verification the company cannot say about the problem, this problem can be solved effectively from service centre of respondent No.1. Further the respondent No.1 contended that customer has not approached the authorized service centre of R-1 to resolved the problem and no job sheet is produced that effect. When the complainant has not availed any service from authorized service centre the swapping problem will not be resolved and unless the complainant approached the service centre the defect cannot be traced out. On these grounds the respondent prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

5.      Both have admits sworn to evidence, relied on documents.  Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Negatively.
2. Negatively.
3.  As per order

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

6.      On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, the purchase of handset by the complainant from the respondent.2 manufactured by the respondent.1

7.      When the problem start with regard to mobile hand set the complainant never approached the authorized service centre of respondent No.1 and also not produced a single document to show that she has approached service centre. When the problem is arised due to software problem, the problem can be resolved by upgrading the software this can be done only through service centre of respondent No.1 and not by seller of product.

 

8.  The complainant has produced the booklet that the manual and along with the warrant card wherein it has been clearly stated that the repair under warranty period shall be carried out by the company authorized person only. This sentence itself is sufficient to show that for the repair one as to approached the service centre authorized by the company. But in the present case the complainant has not produced a single document to show that she has approached the service centre etc., and upon that the respondents have taken contention that the complaint is premature as the complainant has filed the present case without approaching the service centre and prayed to dismiss. However the prayer of the complainant cannot be allow but an opportunity to the complainant can be granted to approach the respondent to get the handset repair. Therefore the point No.1 and 2 are answered in negative but the Point No.3 in regards to the relief is as ordered.

9.      Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following; 

: ORDER :

 

          The complaint is dismissed with a liberty to the complainant to approach service centre of respondent No.2 and resolved the problem as alleged by the complainant. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 15^th day of June 2015)

           Member                         Member                    President

gm*