Order-23.

Date-15/07/2015.

Complainant Kalyan Kumar Das by filing this complaint submitted that he purchased a Smart handset Mobile phone manufactured by Samsung Company vide Model No. GTS-6312 on 20.07.2013 from the ops and the price of the said phone was Rs. 8,252/- inclusive of all taxes and op no.1 emphatically assured the complainant that the said hand set smart phone was the best in quality and it would provide best service in all respects.

But the complainant being a layman, in respect of the technology introduced and applied by the manufacturing company to manufacture and produce mobile hand set phone, whole heartedly believed the statement and assurance of the op no.1.But since the date of commencement of the date of using the said hand mobile phone started acute troubles and complainant failed to use the said phone and suffered mental pain and agony and thereafter complainant was convinced that taking advantage of simplicity and honesty of the complainant sold and handed over the defective mobile hand set.

So, complainant immediately after detection of such defectiveness and dysfunction of the said set, requested the op and reported the matter and disclosing the defective condition of the said phone and highlighted the fact to all concerns and brought to the knowledge of the ops on 20.08.2014.Thereafter op reported that due to net work problem, such sort of incident happened and might be there was server problem.So, op no.1 advised the complainant to charge the mobile for hours together and relying upon the assurance, the complainant charged the hand set for a long time and despite being charged of the said phone for several hours at a stretch the words “Low Battery” was shown in the screen of the said phone.The matter was again brought to the notice of the op no.1 and initially op no.1 declined to pay importance to the complaint of the complainant.But subsequently op no.1 took the said phone for repairing and thereafter repaired phone was returned to the complainant after retaining/withholding the same for a long period to vindicate it as if the work of repair was being continued without doing anything to repair the same.

Fact remains that neither the said service, nor the op took initiative to repair the said mobile phone to provide proper service.On the contrary there was not done any repair work and defective phone was again handed over to the complainant and ultimately the said phone was not repaired even during warranty period and in the above circumstances for negligent and deficient manner of service and also for adopting unfair trade practice, complainant has filed this complaint for redressal.

On the other hand Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. by filing written statement submitted that the entire allegation is false and fact remains that complainant never visited the Service Centre/op regarding the dispute in respect of the alleged handset and complainant has failed to prove that he ever visited or informed the present op regarding the dispute in respect of the alleged device and also failed to produce any such document in support of his allegation against the op and fact remains that complainant alleged that op no.1 took the phone for repairing and not the Service Centre op no.3 and moreover no such intimation nor any allegations have been sent by the complainant regarding defect of the said phone and as such there was no question of refusal of service by the op.

Op no.3 further submitted that ops were unware about any such allegations of the complainant till received of the summon along with the copy of complaint from the Forum and also submitted that the entire case is false and fabricated and there was no negligence and deficiency on the part of the op no.3.

But anyhow in this case op no.1 the Store Manager of Mobile Stores Ltd. and op no.2 The Mobile Stores Ltd. even after receipt of the summon did not appear before this Forum to contest this case and in the above circumstances we are entering into the merit of this case to determine the consumer dispute of this complaint on the basis of the materials on record.

                                            Decision with reasons

After thorough study of the complaint including the written version and further considering the letter dated 20.08.2014 to the Sotre Manager of Mobile Stores Ltd., it is clear that complainant submitted Cash Memo of Mobile Stores dated 20.07.2013 with one year extended warranty, service request of Samsung Service Centre dated 17.02.2014, 13.06.2014, 26.06.2014 and also on 19.07.2014 and further SIM replacement request form of airtel dated 22.07.2014, Job Sheet of mobile store dated 28.07.2014 and 09.08.2014 and fact remains that the said mobile was deposited to the op nos. 1 & 2 on 28.07.2014 and in the said letter it was also reported that there was some defects and op nos. 1 & 2 received the same, but even then no proper service was given by the op nos. 1 & 2.But it is clear that complainant purchased the same at a cost of Rs. 8,252/- from op nos. 1 & 2.

Truth is that complainant reported about the said defect of the mobile set and it was received by Samsung Customer Service Centre on 17.02.2014 and it was admitted by the Customer Service Centre about some defect “Set Auto Off Battery Discharge Quickly and Network Problem”.Further on 13.06.2014 the said set was received by Samsung Customer Service and defect was same “Set Auto Off, Network Problem, Battery Back Up Low, MMC Not Problem etc.”Subsequently on 26.06.2014 it was again received by the Customer Service of Samsung for same problem.But ultimately Service Centre failed to remove of those defects for which complainant lodged a complaint to the Service Manager, Infotel Services that it was faulty handset and it should be replaced.But it was not replaced.It is further found that the customer information slip is filed by the complainant proving that Samsung Customer Care Centre reported the matter on 19.07.2014.

Fact remains that in respect of the said set, Mother Board was replaced, but even then thereafter they received it but complainant received it with a note “Handset received second time with same problem continues”.

Considering all the above fact, it is clear that complainant always went to Service Centre of the Samsung deposit the handset and one after another repairing work was made but ultimately the handset is not working at all and it was lastly deposited, but it was not replaced and against that op no.3 submitted that it was not reported by the Service Centre to the op is also proved a false defence taken by the Samsung Company and fact remains that Samsung Company Authority in all most all the cases took such sort of defence and truth is that most of the allegation about handset is defective for which many cases have been filed against Samsung Company.

Most interesting factor is that Samsung Company Authority appeared by filing written version and about the allegation of the said handset, there is no such admission by the Samsung Authority for collecting or repairing the handset.But truth is that when the Samsung Company has taken a false defence before this Forum, when complainant has proved that the set was always sent through the seller op nos. 1 & 2 and Service Centre of the op one after another incident received and returned it but defect could not be cured.

So, it is clear that defective set was sold by the op nos. 1 & 2 having no doubt its manufacturing defect because op no.3 Samsung Company Manufacturer of the devise has not taken such a plea that the set has no defect.No step has been taken by the op that it would be replaced by a new one.But now it is proved that complainant suffered much since the date of purchasing the Samsung Mobile Handset on 20.07.2013 and after getting no result, complainant was compelled to file this complaint before this Forum on 31.10.2014.No doubt it is the fault of the manufacturing company including the seller.But anyhow passed one year warranty period, so after crossing of warranty period, purchaser cannot anyway make the seller or the manufacturer accused for selling such defective handset and in this case same is proved very well.

At the same time it is also proved that complainant being officer of LIC had suffered much for not getting service of the said phone, no doubt he purchased it at a cost of Rs. 8,252/-.So, invariably complainant has lost all his faith upon the production of Samsung Company and in reality in such case, question of replacement does not arise when harassment is made by the manufacturer, Service Centre including the seller.

In the light of the above observation and also relying upon the above materials, we are inclined to say that defective mobile was sold by the op nos. 1 & 2 and that defective set was not repaired by the op no.3 or their Service Centre and for which complainant suffered and also failed to get the service of the mobile set even after purchasing the same at a cost of Rs. 8,252/- on 20.07.2014 and till today he is being harassed by the op for which for negligent and deficient manner of service and also for deceitful manner of service, complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

In the result, the complaint succeeds.

Hence, it is

That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against op no.3 with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- and same allowed exparte against op nos. 1 & 2 with a cost of Rs. 3,000/-.

Op nos. 1, 2 & 3 jointly and severally are hereby directed to refund the same of Rs. 8,252/- the price of phone at once along with compensation for harassment the complainant in such a manner and for not giving proper service to the complainant even after two years when there was warranty for one year from the date of purchase, but during that period only they are waiting for the purpose of crossing the warranty period.

Accordingly ops jointly and severally are directed to pay the entire decretal amount to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which for non compliance of Forum’s order, penal damages at the rate Rs. 100/- per day shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree.

If the handset is in the custody of the complainant, in that case complainant shall have to handover the said defective set to op no.3 and if it is in the custody of op nos. 1 & 2, in that case op nos. 1 & 2 shall have to collect the same and deposit the said set to the op no.3.

If it is found that ops jointly and severally are reluctant to comply the order, in that case penal action shall be started against them for which they shall be prosecuted u/s 25/27 of C.P. Act 1986 for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.