The gist of the case is that Md. Golam Ambia Chisti the complainant herein purchased a Samsung J-7 Pro Mobile set on 16/10/2017 from the Mobile Shop for a sum of Rs. 20,900/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred Only).
After purchase the complainant found that the phone did not support 4G Network. Thereafter, the complainant called up the Samsung Toll Free No.1800407267864, they advised the complainant to download Samsung Smart Tutor Apps. After downloading the said apps of complainant’s phone supported 4G network. After two months of use the complainant found that the blue tooth connection, the WIFI connection and the Hotspot connection were stopped and battery backup also started diminishing and even after giving the mobile full charge the complainant had to re-charge the mobile thrice a day to get continuous service.
Sometime in the month of January,2017 the complainant took the mobile to Samsung Service Centre, they registered the complaint and said that the complainant had upgraded the software outside. the complainant,informed them that mobile set was purchased on 16/10/2017 and it was well within warranty period. So uploading the mobile software from outside was out of question.
The Service Centre informed the complainant that if they have to repair the mobile the complainant will be charged for such service for which they asked him to sign a No Objection form. After going through the No Objection Form the complainant refused to sign the said form. They asked the complainant to call the toll free number but he could not connect the toll free number. Thereafter, he asked them that when his phone was well within the warranty period why they shall not give the complainant any service. They showed deaf ear to the said request of the complainant. On 17/02/2018 the complainant took the mobile to the shop from where the complainant purchased the same with a request that he want a defect free mobile set. The retail shop from where the mobile set was purchased, kept the said mobile set with them. After 13 days the mobile shop owner told the complainant that he had downloaded some uncommon apps for which the mobile of the complainant had stopped functioning and returned the said mobile to him in dead condition on 21/02/2018.
The complainant was surprised that the Samsung Service Centre is giving him different excuses on different times and neglecting to repair his said mobile which the complainant has purchased with his hard earned money for more than Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only). Finding no other alternatives the complainant filed the instant case before this Forum.
In support of the case of the complainant he filed the service request acknowledge receipt, the money receipt of the mobile shop. The Samsung India Electronics Ltd. the O.P. No.1 entered appearance on 13/07/2019 by filing Vokalatnama and also filed their written version. The O.P. No.1 also filed a warranty which is valid all over India and a photograph being Annexure –B. The O.P. No.1 came to contest this case on 30/07/2019 whereas the case was fixed for ex parte hearing on 30/01/2019. Thereafter, the case is heard ex parte against the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.2 entered appearance to contest the case. Hence, the case is also fixed for ex parte against him.
::DECISION WITH REASONS::
On going through the petition and the documents on record we find that a person purchased any electronic gadgets with a high price wishes to enhance his social prestige. A mobile phone of Rs.20,990/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Only) is not a meager amount which a person spends to buy mental agony and disharmony while using an updated mobile set. It is very clear that the complainant purchased the mobile set on 16/10/2017 and went to the Service Centre on 07/02/2018 with “SET NOT ON”, “WIFI,” “BLUE TOOTH”, “HOTSPOT”not working which clearly shows that the Samsung Mobile set was defective and four months of purchase with a defective was taken to the service centre which is definitely not very appreciable for a Company like Samsung, who has a worldwide business and people in small town like Malda only on the goodwill of the name of the brand Samsung intents to and spends to acquire a mobile phone for more than Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only).
It is the duty of the O.P. Samsung Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. to keep up their goodwill adhere to the complaints made by the customer who spends their heard earned money to obtain a piece of electronics item based only on the brand name. But in this case the O.P. has miserably failed to provide adequate service to the complainant for which the complainant was forced to come with a prayer before this Forum. The photograph filed by the op along with their WV cannot be said to be of the mobile set of the complainant in question as such it is not considered.
The complainant is very much a consumer of the O.Ps and the O.P. No.1 Samsung Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. failed to discharge their duties being the manufacturer. Moreover the op no2.is the service centre of op no.1as such all liability devolves upon the Opposite party no1. Therefore, the complainant could very much make out his case and the O.P. is liable for deficiency in service towards the complainant.
C.F. paid is correct.
Hence, ordered that
The case is and same heard ex parte against O.P. Nos.1 and 2.
The O.P. Nos. 1 is directed to refund the price of the mobile being Rs.20,900/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred Only)together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand Only) within 45 days of passing out this order failing which a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees One Hundred Only) per diam to be payable by the O.P. Nos. 1 from the 46th day till payment in toto. The complainant shall put this order into execution in due process of law.
Let a copy of this judgment be given to the Complainant/O.P. free of cost on proper application.
