Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

cc/25/2016

k.Sirajudheen - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

S.Jeevanandham , K.Ayyappan

02 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  25.01.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  02.03.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY  THE 02^nd DAY OF MARCH 2018

 

C.C.NO.25/2016

 

Mr.K.Sirajudheen,

S/o. Mohamed,

No.40/44, Silandhi Kottai,

Kolathur Road,

Chennai – 600 099.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The Manager,

Samsung India Electronic (P)Ltd.,

2,3 & 4 Floor, Tower C Vipul Tech Square,

Old Golf Course Road,Gurgaon Sector 43,

Gurgaon – 122 002.

 

2.The Customer Experience Manager,

Samsung India Electronic (P) Ltd.,

Biscon Tower, Ground Floor,

Kodambakkam High Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

 

3.The Manager,

No.F-24, opp to Tainishq Jewellery,    

Near Roundtana,

2^nd Avenue, Anna Nagar East,

Chennai – 600 102.                                               .....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 08.03.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.S.Jeevanandham, K.Ayyappan

Counsel for  1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties   : M/s. V.V.Giridhar, P.Suresh, K.Senthil

 

Counsel for 3^rd opposite party                      : Dismissed (on 22.08.2016)

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to compensate the loss suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party and with costs of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased two Samsung galaxy smart phones on 12.04.2015, each phone costs Rs.16,699/-. The said mobile phones have not been properly working. The first mobile phone not charging and the second one got hanging and failed to connect network. The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer and the 2^nd opposite party is the service provider. The complainant approached the Annanagar service centre and they initially solved the said problems. However, the problems again recurred after two days and hence approached the 3^rd opposite party service centre and inturn they sent to the second opposite party.

          2. The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party during first week of August 2015 and they changed the main board and battery and also extended the warranty for another five months. Again after one month the mobiles got hanging problem, not able to charge the battery and also got screen problem. The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for the said problems and their staffs came to his residence and after checking the mobile said that they were unable to solve the problems. Hence the complainant sought for replacement of the mobiles or refund the costs. The complainant unable to use the mobiles and there was no response from the 2^nd opposite party. Hence he had issued legal notice dated 25.09.2015 for the deficiency committed by the opposite party. Thereafter the complainant filed this complaint to compensate the loss suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party and with costs of the complaint.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF

The opposite parties 1 and 2 admits that the complainant approached them for servicing his mobile phones. In the first mobile phone, panel got damaged and hence the same is not covered under the warranty terms. The complainant was further informed that he has to pay for the replacement of the mobile panel and for the same the complainant did not agree and sought for the replacement of the mobile phone which was not covered under the warranty terms. However as a goodwill gesture a further period of 5 months warranty was extended. The complainant has refused to give the mobile for service.

          4. With regard to the another mobile, on inspection the PBA and sub PBA of the mobile got replaced and the same was working in a good condition. The complainant also sought for replacement of the another mobile  also. Hence these opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service, in view of that the complainant refused to entrust the mobile for service and therefore prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased two Samsung galaxy mobile phones under Ex.A1 and A2 which was manufactured by the first opposite party and the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are the authorized service provider of the 1^st opposite party and the mobiles had certain problems and the complainant entrusted them with the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties for service and Ex.A5 are the email correspondence between the service centre and the complainant sought replacement of the mobiles and that was refused by the opposite parties and thereafter the complainant issued Ex.A3 notice and filed this complaint towards loss of compensation.

          7. The complainant alleged deficiencies that the one mobile phone was not charging and the other one got hanging and after servicing with the 2^nd opposite party, again the same problem occurred and again after approach the 2^nd opposite party reset the mobiles software and handed over to him and again he got the same problem and hence he sought for replacement.

          8. The complainant has not filed the job sheet issued by the service centre to know about what was the service done by them. Ex.A6 are the email correspondences sent by the service center to the complainant in respect of servicing the complainant’s mobile. In the mail dated 14.09.2015 addressed to the complainant stated “that PBA problem was found and they were internally discussing about the replacement request and will update you within 2 days of time”. Followed by that mail another mail dated 16.09.2015, the service center replied that the device was checked by the technical expert and it was concluded that PBA change would solve the problem in the device and replacement of the same device was offered with a same model new phone, was refused by yourself, hence we will not be able to cater your request for exchange with a different model or refund the cost of the product. The complainant has not denied the contents of the above reply mail of the opposite parties. The above reply clears that the opposite parties have offered for replacement of same model phone and that was not accepted by the complainant and insisted for new model phone. Normally, the replacement could be done with the same model by the customer and that was offered by the opposite parties. When the complainant himself refused to accept the replacement with same model, he is not entitled for replacement with different model or refund and hence we hold that none of the opposite parties 1 to 3 have committed any deficiency in service and accordingly we answer.  

09. POINT NO :2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 02^nd day of March 2018.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     Bill

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Bill

Ex.A3 dated 25.09.2015                   Legal Notice

Ex.A4 dated NIL                     Acknowledgment Card

Ex.A5 dated 01.06.2015                   Mail Correspondents

Ex.A6 dated  08.04.2016                  Samsung …. E5 Reviews

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st & 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                                …… NIL …..

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT