DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Tuesday the 30th day of January 2024
C.C.171/2021
Complainant
Midhun Pankaj,
Chethana 33/551,
AR Camp Road, Marikkunnu (PO),
Kozhikode – 673 012.
(By Advocates Smt. Liliya. M, Sri Muhammed Akbar. P, Smt. Ayisha.P, Smt. Alphia Liz Vincent)
Opposite Party
Samsung,
6th Floor, DLF Centre,
Sansad marg,New Delhi – 110001.
(By Adv. Sri. Manimangalath Sameer Babu)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant purchased a Premium Samsung Smart Phone (Galaxy S21 Ultra) from an authorised dealer in Kozhikode on 30/04/2021. On 16/07/2021 when the complainant opened Samsung’s Official App, he came to know about an offer he received from Samsung for purchasing the above mobile handset, which was to purchase a Samsung Galaxy Buds Pro for Rs. 990/- through the App, which at that time was approximately worth Rs. 16,000/-. Unfortunately, the complainant was not able to claim the offer since the application was showing some error. When he contacted the customer care executive, he was provided with some trouble shooting steps, but none of those worked. He again contacted the Samsung and then he was asked to wait for 24 hours and he was provided with the ticket number 2126512. But the issue never got solved.
- Whenever he contacted, the representatives of the opposite party had the same response to give which was to wait. So he raised a complaint on the Consumer Help Line Online Forum on 11/08/2021 and he was given a grievance number 2896797. Then the representative of the opposite party contacted him a few days later and assured that the issue would be solved with in 5 to 7 working days and he was provided a new ticket number. But thereafter they stopped communicating with him via e-mail and even stopped responding to his e-mails. When asked, they told that they were sending e-mails, but some technical issues might have been preventing the mails from being delivered and told that they would be looking to that issue.
- The complainant continued to send e-mails and even made several calls, but the cold responses kept coming from their representatives. On 15/09/2021 he got an e-mail from the Samsung in which a coupon code was given to him to redeem the original offer and they closed his case. However, he had to get an OTP delivered as SMS to his mobile number to which the coupon code was attached, which they were not sending. The complainant tried requesting OTP’s to various other numbers to login to their website and all those were getting OPTs promptly, but the number to which the coupon code was attached was not getting OTP. The complainant believes that the Samsung has purposefully black listed his mobile number so as to not to receive any OTP to login to their website so that he would not be able to claim the coupon code generated against the phone number, which was valid only till 30/09/2021. He did not receive any response from the opposite party even though he had sent several e-mails. From July to October the complainant had sent e-mail over a dozen times and called the opposite party at least 20 times. The complainant was put to severe mental agony and hardship due to the inaction on the part of the opposite party, who has cheated him. He is entitled to be compensated. Hence the complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 32,000/- along with the expenses incurred for pursuing this complaint.
- The opposite party has resisted the complaint by filing written version wherein they have denied all the allegations and claims made against them. As per the records, it is true that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone from the dealer, which is manufactured by the opposite party. At the time of purchasing the said hand set, there was a promotional offer of ear bud worth Rs. 900/-. It was only a promotional offer that need not be processed surely provided there are certain steps to be completed within a short span of time by the customer. The opposite party has nothing to do with that promotional offer that too is not a sure one, but one by one steps are to be completed through online by the complainant himself. The opposite party is not responsible for the struck caused while trying to complete the steps through online.
- The issue involved in this case is not a product related one, but a promotional offer that too not covered under warranty terms and conditions. No complaint to the product is reported at any point of time. There is no manufacturing defect in the unit. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to get the handset replaced or refunded. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or cost of the proceedings. The opposite party has not committed any act of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. With the above contentions, the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are; 1) Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, as alleged? 2) Reliefs and costs.
- The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was let in by the opposite party. Exts B1 and B2 were marked.
- Both sides submitted argument notes.
- Point No. 1: The complainant has purchased a Premium Samsung Smart Phone (Galaxy S21 Ultra) manufactured by the opposite party paying Rs. 1,14,387/- inclusive of charger, protective case and insurance. The purchase was on 30/04/2021 from an authorised dealer in Kozhikode. The grievance of the complainant is that there was an offer which was to purchase a Samsung galaxy buds pro for Rs.990/- through the App. But he was not able to claim the offer as the app was showing some error and there was inaction and negligence on the part of the opposite party to address his concerns over the matter despite repeated requests made over phone and by way of e-mail.
- In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the invoice dated 30/04/2021 for having purchased the handset, Ext A2 series are the copies of the email communication between the complainant and the opposite party and Ext A3 is the copy of the complaint on the Consumer Help Line Online Forum with grievance No. 2896797.
- The opposite party has admitted in the written version that there was an offer of ear buds, but it was only a promotional offer and that need not be processed surely. According to the opposite party, there were certain steps to be completed within a short span of time by the customer and those steps were not completed by the complainant within time, which was not due to any latches on the part of the opposite party, whereas the latches were on the part of none other than the complainant himself. No oral evidence was let in by the opposite party. Ext B1 is the copy of the power of attorney and Ext B2 is the copy of the warranty.
- It is not disputed that on 30/04/2021 the complainant had purchased a Premium Samsung Smart Phone (Galaxy S21 Ultra) which is manufactured by the opposite party. That at the time of purchasing the said handset, there was an offer to purchase Samsung Galaxy buds Pro for a reduced price of Rs. 990/- is not disputed. The complainant was not able to claim the offer as the App was showing some error. The purchase of the Samsung Galaxy Buds Pro was to be made through Samsung’s Official App - “Samsung shop” subsequent to the purchase of the handset. PW1 has categorically asserted before this Commission that he was not able to claim the offer as the App was showing some errors and though he had contacted the opposite party multiple times, the issue was not resolved and finally he did not receive the OTP even after multiple attempts. It is deposed by PW1 that the OTP was getting generated to all other mobile numbers except his registered mobile number, to which, the coupon code was attached. PW1 has categorically deposed that the opposite party had black listed his registered number in order to restrain him from claiming the coupon which was valid only till 30/09/2021. Even though PW1 was cross examined, nothing has been brought out to discredit his version. Ext A2 series communication shows the genuineness of the grievance of the complainant. The opposite party did not enter the box and there is no contra evidence to disprove the claim of the complainant. There was inaction and irresponsible attitude and conduct on the part of the opposite party.
- The opposite party has taken a contention in the written version that the complainant is alleging manufacturing defect in the product and that he is not entitled to get the handset replaced or the price refunded. But it may be noted that the complainant has not alleged any manufacturing defect in the product and no prayer is there in the complaint for replacement of the product or refund of the purchase price. The prayer in the complaint is for compensation on account of the deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
- The complainant was not able to avail the offer due to the inaction and negligence on the part of the opposite party. The inaction and irresponsible attitude and conduct of the opposite party is nothing but negligence and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Undoubtedly, the complainant was put to much mental agony and hardship due to the latches on the part of the opposite party, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 3,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
- Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC.171/2021 is allowed in part.
b) The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
c) The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
d) The payment as afore stated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs.20,000/- shall carry an interest of 6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 30th day of January, 2024.
Date of Filing: 21/10/2021
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext A1 - Copy of the invoice dated 30/04/2021 for having purchased the handset.
Ext A2 series - Copies of the email communication between the complainant and the opposite party.
Ext A3 - Copy of the complaint on the Consumer Help Line Online Forum with grievance No. 2896797.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Ext B1 - Copy of the power of attorney
Ext B2 - Copy of the warranty.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 - Midhun Pankaj (Complainant)
Witness for the opposite party
Nil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
True Copy,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar.
