JUDGEMENT
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he purchased one Samsung Make Mobile Handset, Model No. C3312, Sl. No. 354158059789287 from Samsung’s retailer, M/s SUNTRACK ELECTROCS Pvt. Ltd. of 1/1A, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Kolkata – 700072 vide Invoice No. 4556 at a price of Rs. 3,700/-. But soon after purchase the touch screen of the said mobile set started malfunctioning. Complainant deposited the set with Samsung Service Centre at 100, Briji Road, Garia, Kolkata-700084 in February 2013 and the set was returned in working condition on the next day.
Complainant once again faced some problems when more serious defects were revealed within a few more months that the battery was not retaining charge even after charging for 16-24 hours and so the complainant deposited the set again with the said Service Centre on 19.08.2013 and it was returned to the complainant on 21.08.2013 after alleged repair.
Thereafter one day had to be deposited once again by the complainant with the same service centre on 23.08.2013 and the set was returned on 24.08.013 to the complainant with only problem to appear again and had to be re-deposited on 14.09.2013. it was returned on 21.09.2013 after a week and the same problem reappeared on 06.10.2013. So complainant went to the service centre4 times within 7 months, thrice for the same problem of battery charging, this time he sent an email to the CEO’s office of Samsung indicating the manufacturing defect in the set as it will be obvious from the history mentioned there. Since the set definitely had inherent designed/manufacturing defects and the complainant requested via email to Samsung India’s CEO’s office that the set should be replaced with a new one without any additional cost to him as per good business practices and that should be followed by any reputed and professional organization.
One Mr. Varun Bajaj from Samsung CEO’s office requested the complainant on 08.10.2013 over telephone to deposit the set with their service centre again so that the company can diagnose the problem and decide on further action to resolve the issue. But the complainant was out of Kolkata at that time and so he deposited the said set with the service centre on 15.10.2013 as committed to Mr. Bajaj. Complainant had made it clear to Mr. Bajaj as well as their service centre that he would be deposited the set not on his own volition and only to comply with the wish of Mr. Bajaj. Then complainant was fully convinced that the set has inherent manufacturing defects and it will start malfunctioning once again after their so called repair work and complainant also made it categorically clear to them that he will not take the defective set back from the service centre.
In the above circumstances and considering the malfunctioning of the said set, complainant wants to a new set in place of old one and for which he has prayed for relief and compensation and also prayed for directing the op to be diligent for the inconvenience for the cause of the complainant.
On the other hand op nos. 1 & 3 by filing written statement submitted that complainant lodged complaint thrice and op attended the same and finally on insistent of the complainant the set was taken into custody and service was provided and the set is okay and same was taken back by the complainant and there was no negligence on the part of the op. But on the last occasion op after providing service asked the complainant to take back the same but the complainant did not take delivery for the best known. But all other allegations is false and fabricated and in the result the complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
On fair study of the complaint and written version and also considering the version of the complainant including their evidences in chief and the documents, it is clear that there is no manufacturing defect in the respect of the said set only battery is not charging well for which op is bound to replace the said battery and to return the same and in this regard complainant’s own version that complainant is not willing to take back which is lying in the service centre of the Samsung. But such sort of consumer is not at all acceptable by any Forum. Truth is that within 7 months he visited the office of op thrice for some minor problem and practically touch skin mobile is sometimes not properly maintained and handled by the customers for which some problems are found but that is only for customers own negligence to maintain and to operate the same.
Truth is that complainant is an aged person and probably he is not aware of operating the touch skin mobile and for which some problems were found and same are forthwith removed by giving the complainant such chance to use and complainant no doubt used it without any interruption and ultimately deposited on the 4th occasion on 15.10.2013 and as per op’s version same has already been repaired and made it usable. But complainant did not turn out to accept it and from the complainant’s own version he is not willing to take back. But such sort of arrogant attitude of the consumer cannot be entertained by this Forum.
Further considering the entire document and the present complaint, it is found that complainant purchased the said set on 05.02.2013 and battery is not the whole part of the entire mobile set. Practically charging of battery is not properly maintained by the customers. After purchase the battery should be charged for 24 hours and therefore charge must be given to the battery when in the screen it is found that battery is found low and some signal is there when the battery shall be charged till its full charge and signal shall be there for such note battery fully charged. Invariably that procedure has not been maintained by the complainant for which the battery has been damaged and it is not being charged properly.
So, by charging the battery the present disputed set can be easily used. But even then we find that the whole conduct of the present complainant is not justifiable as consumer and such sort of conduct is not part of any principle of consumerism to give the complainant a chance to take back the same after proper certification of the ops’. So we are disposing this matter finally by passing such final order when negligence and deficiency on the part of the ops is not found. When arrogant attitude of the complainant is proved and when he is not willing to take back the said mobile set from service centre.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest of Rs.1,000/- against the op nos. 1 & 3 and same is allowed exparte against op no.2 but without any cost.
Op nos. 1 & 3 are hereby directed to hand over the said set in running condition giving such certificate that the said mobile set does not suffer from any manufacturing defect and at the time of handling the said mobile set that certificate shall be given by the op nos. 1 & 3 to the complainant along with the said mobile set and replacing a new battery with the said set without charging any cost and same shall be done by the op nos. 1 & 3 invariably within one month from the date of this order and complainant is directed to receive it back with such certificate and the said set along with new battery from the op nos. 1 & 3.
Op nos. 1 & 3 are hereby directed to comply the order positively on the date of depositing the mobile of the complainant and complainant for receiving back the same but at the time of handing over the same by the op nos. 1 & 3 and op nos. 1 & 3 shall have to certify that the said mobile set is not defective and does not suffer from any manufacturing defect.
Op nos. 1 & 3 are hereby directed to comply the order and to hand over the cost of Rs. 1,000/- within one month to the complainant from the date of this order failing which penal action shall be started against then for which penalty and fine may be imposed u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 and further penal action shall be taken for non-compliance of the Forum’s order.
