Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/188/2013

M.Megha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung Customer Service - Opp.Party(s)

G.Kumud Jhabakh

16 Nov 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   21.06.2013

                                                                        Date of Order :   16.11.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (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

                                DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.188/2013

                                                            THURSDAY THIS  16^T DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

 

M. Megha,

D/o. Mahendera Surana,

No.4, General Muthiah Street,

Sowcarpet,

Chennai 600 079.                                       Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

1. M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

A-25, G Floor, Front Tower,

Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

New Delhi 110 044.

 

2. M/s. Samsung Customer Service,

Rep. by its Manager,

Begum Isphani Complex,

91, Armenian Street,

Chennai 600 001.

 

3. M/s. Univercell Telecommunication Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.281, T.T.K. Road,

Alwarpet,

Chennai 600 018.                                      Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant         :   M/s. G.Kumud Jhabakh         

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

Counsel for opposite party-3   :   M/s. R.Gobi  

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.50,000/- towards unfair trade practice adopted and misbehavior by the 3^rd opposite partyand to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service by the opposite parties 1 & 2 and to pay a sum of Rs.1,791.67 plus subsequently EMI with interest and cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.

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

         The complainant submit that he purchased Samsung Galaxy Grand mobile phone for a sum price of Rs.21,490/- and with cash back 15% amount of Rs.3,223/- on 28.4.2003.   The said amount was paid by way of 12 EMI starts from 28.4.2013.  Further the complainant state that  the 3^rd opposite party  charged Rs.21,500/-  instead of  Rs.21,490/- i.e. Rs.10/- in excess  an authorized which amount to unfair trade practice.    Further the complainant state that on 15.6.2013 a sum of Rs.1,791.67 was debited to the card account towards EMI.     From the 4^th day of the purchase of the said mobile phone started some problem. Immediately the complainant visited the 3^rd opposite party to complain the said problem.    The 3^rd opposite party Sales Executives treated the complainant and behaved in a indecent manner and ask the complainant to “get out from here”.    Subsequently there was a complaint lodged with the 1^st opposite party complaint No.8453162388 dated 6.5.2013.  Even after repeated demands and requests made by the complainant the opposite party has not returned the mobile phone after duly repaired.  As such the act of  the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.    The brief averments in the Written Version of  the   opposite parties 1 & 2 are  as follows:

The  opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The opposite parties state that  admittedly the complainant purchased the mobile phone had offered a cash back of Rs.3,223/- on EMI basis.   On 15.6.2013 a sum of Rs.1790/- was collected excess towards EMI is not correct.   This opposite party has not collected any such amount.  Further the opposite parties state that the mobile phone was submitted for repair.  This opposite party admitted to pay the cost of the mobile Rs.21,500/-.    The opposite parties submit that on verification the mobile phone purchased by the complainant was in proper condition however of good gesture the opposite parties had agreed to refund the amount paid by the complainant and by their mail dated 8.6.2013 the opposite party 1 & 2 had informed the complainant that they will be refunding the amount towards the purchase of the mobile phone.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    The brief averments in the Written Version of  the 3^rd   opposite party is  as follows:

The  opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The opposite party submit that they directed the complaint to approach the service center of manufacture for service.   As per this opposite party direction the complaint raised the complaint to the manufacture and get service.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 marked on the side of the opposite party.

5.   The points for the consideration is: 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards unfair trade practice adopted and misbehavior by the 3^rd opposite party as prayed for?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service by the opposite parties 1 & 2.

 

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,791.67 plus subsequently EMI with interest and cost of Rs.20,000/- as prayed for?

 

 

6. POINTS  1 to 3: 

          Admittedly the complainant purchased Samsung Galaxy Grand mobile phone for a sum price of Rs.21,490/- and with cash back 15% amount of Rs.3,223/- on 28.4.2003 as per Ex.A2.  The said amount was paid by way of 12 EMI starts from 28.4.2013.  The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that the 3^rd opposite party  charged Rs.21,500/-  instead of  Rs.21,490/- i.e. Rs.10/- in excess  un authorizedly which amount to unfair trade practice.   But the complainant has not produced any record to show the cost of mobile phone is Rs.21,490/-.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that on 15.6.2013 a sum of Rs.1,791.67 was debited to the card account towards EMI.   But on  a careful perusal of Ex.A15, there is no iota of any evidence for the said amount was debited by the opposite party.   Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that from the 4^th day of the purchase of the said mobile phone started some problem. Immediately the complainant visited the 3^rd opposite party to complain the said problem.    The 3^rd opposite party Sales Executives ill treated the complainant and behaved in a indecent manner and ask the complainant to “get out from here”.    Subsequently there was a complaint lodged with the 1^st opposite party complaint No.8453162388 dated 6.5.2013.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that even after repeated demands and requests made by the complainant the opposite party has not returned the mobile phone after duly repaired. Hence the complainant constrained to file a complaint after issuing the legal notice.

7.     The contention of the opposite parties is that admittedly the complainant purchased the mobile phone had offered a cash back of Rs.3,223/- on EMI basis.  The allegation that the excess amount of Rs.10/- collected an authorized as false.   The cost of the mobile is Rs.21,500/- due receipt also issued.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that on 15.6.2013 a sum of Rs.1790/- was collected excess towards EMI is not correct.   This opposite party has not collected any such amount.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the mobile phone was submitted for repair.  This opposite party admitted to pay the cost of the mobile Rs.21,500/-.  The allegation of ill treatment and indecent behavior are imaginary.   The allegation of ill   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 give a brand new same model mobile phone to the complainant  and shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- and the points are answered accordingly.   

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1  to 3  are jointly and severally liable to give a brand new same model mobile phone to the complainant  and shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.  

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amount 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 16^th day  of  November 2017.  

 MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 19.4.2013  - Copy of Advertisement.

Ex.A2- 28.4.2013  - Copy of invoice.

Ex.A3- 7.5.2013    - Copy of Mail.

Ex.A4- 7.5.2013    - Copy of receipt.

Ex.A5- 8.5.2013    - Copy of notice.

Ex.A6-                   - Copy of credit card transaction.

Ex.A7- 20.5.2013  - Copy of mail.

Ex.A8- 21.5.2013  - Copy of mail.

Ex.A9- 28.5.2013  - Copy of mail.

Ex.A10- 1.6.2013  - Copy of mail.

Ex.A11- 4.6.2013  - Copy of mail.

Ex.A12- 4.6.2013  - Copy of mail.

Ex.A13- 8.6.2013  - Copy of mail.

Ex.A14- 13.6.2013 – Copy of mail.

Ex.A15- 15.6.2013         - Copy of payment of EMI.

 

Opposite parties Documents :

 

Ex.B1-                 - Copy of Authorization letter.

Ex.B2- 1.7.2013    - Copy of email.

Ex.B3- 2.7.2013    - Copy of email.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.