DATE OF FILING: 10.4.2014.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 22.09.2016.
Dr. Alaka Mishra, Member (W).
The complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging defect in product against the Opposite Parties (for short, the O.Ps.) and redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased a SAMSUNG mobile cell phone Model DUOS GT-56102 product sl.No.352272050990935 on 7.5.2012 paying Rs.9169/- as cost of mobile phone and paid Rs.275/- towards extended warranty and prompt service charge to the O.P.No.3 being the authorized dealer of O.P.No.1. After purchase, on the very next day, the complainant found that the phone had a defective memory card which did not format. The complainant reported matter of defective memory to the dealer and on advice run to the service centre situated at Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar and spent 2 days and extracted 5 valuable professional hours for replacement of memory card, anyhow formatted the memory. On format the mobile again noticed with battery back-up problem, the complainant rushed to the dealer for such defect the dealer brushed way the complainant’s complaint on the plea that all ANDROID phone are similar battery supports. The complainant in much mental pressure used the phone, but after 3 months of purchase the phone alarmed plugging to mains almost every hour of recharge regularly, the complainant astonished about the problem finally lodged a complaint on online with all websites of O.Ps. While showing artificial and formal sympathy, the O.Ps advised the complainant to visit nearest service centre M/s KAISER ELECTRONICS, Sitaram Building at Crawford Market, Mumbai, the franchise service center of Samsung did the only significant thing of erasing total data and phone book in the name of reloading software for suspected virus clean-up. So the complainant pushed too much hardship of locating contracts and loss of critical data, the phone was handed over after 8 hours and advised to re-contact in case the problem persisted. The continuance of the problem again rushed back the complainant to the service center after intervening weekend to request the service centre to keep the phone for proper observation of the real issue and the Mumbai service center did keep it for observation for a significant couple of days, only to further frustrate the complainant impolitely responding that they had nothing to do with battery defect after expiry of warranty and suggested for replace of battery at complainants cost to solve the problem. The complainant on refusal to replace the battery and on advise to bear cost of the battery inspite of validity of warranty and availability of extended warranty by the dealer again visited the dealer at Bhubaneswar during the next tour assessment only yielded more harassment and expense and suffering while replacement of battery at personal cost as per advise of the Mumbai service centre only robbed the purse of the complainant than bringing any cheer. The phone is menacingly generating hear, posing safety threat to the uses, which is sucking battery so fast and even after keeping the phone under observation for a significant number of days it would not come to the notice of service centre is the real story that makes mockery of the concept of customer service. After getting long and persistent harassment, mental agony and vase of value time contacted the CEO, of the O.P.No.1 on online repeatedly, but entire efforts goes to futile while receiving repeated irritating calls and e-mail commanding to the complainant to hesitate before the another service center. The service centre and dealer at Bhubaneswar refused to keep the phone and advised to approach the manufacturer of Samsung for such manufacturing problem and washed its hand. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- in the best interest of justice.
The complainant filed the following documents in support of his case.
(1) Photocopy of job sheet No. 4271 dated 28th November 2012.
(2)Photocopy of service report of Samsung request date 24.11.2012.
(3) Photocopy of cash memo Digital Reliance Retail ltd. Bhubaneswar.
(4) Photocopy of answer (VOC) complaint: Galaxy Y Duos. 12 numbers.
Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but they intentionally neither chooses to appear nor filed any written version. Hence they declared set exparte on dated 4.4.2016.
On the date of exparte hearing of the consumer disputes, we heard argument at length from the complainant and gone through the complaint petition, written argument and documents filed by the complainant. We have also perused the case record and verified he documents. Despite several persuasions the Opposite Parties did not heed to consider the grievance of the complainant. This action of the Opposite Parties has attributed to deficiency in service. In absence of any version and argument from the side of the O.Ps to controvert the complaint of the complainant, we feel that there is substance in the allegation of the complainant. This Forum by relying upon a citation passed by National Commission, New Delhi in M/S Sony Ericsson India Ltd. versus Shri Ashish Agrawal 2008 (1) CPR 47 such as:- “Where replaced mobile was also defective, State Commission rightly accepted the appeal for refund of the complainant rather than further replacement”. We feel there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps for making good of the defective mobile set. In the light of the above decision of law we allow the case.
In the result the complain petition is allowed on exparte against the Opposite Parties who are jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of the T-pad of Rs.9,169/- (Rupees Nine Thousand One Hundred Sixty Nine) only together with cost and compensation of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only to the complainant within two months of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the same U/S 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. After receiving the amount the complainant is directed to return the defective mobile set GALAXY Y DUOS GT-S6102 to the O.Ps. This case is disposed off accordingly.
The order is pronounced on this day of 22nd September 2016 under the signature and seal of this Forum. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
