DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 31^st day May, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

            : Smt.Vidya A., Member           

            : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member             Date of filing 08/04/2022   

CC/62/2022

Antony.M.E

S/o Eenasu, Manjali Veettil

Kannambra Post, Alathur Taluk

      Palakkad – 678 686                                                   -       Complainant

(Party in person)

Vs

      The Managing Director

      Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

      6^th Floor, DLF Centre

      Samsung Marg

New Delhi                                                                  -       Opposite party

(By Adv. M/s Mohammed Azarudeen &

Joseph Devassy)

O R D E R

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member.

1.  Pleadings of the Complainant

      The complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy F62 model mobile phone manufactured by the opposite party through the online platform of Flipkart for Rs. 17,999/- on 27/07/2021.  His grievance is that he is not getting 4G facility in the phone as per the specification published in the online site.  When informed the customer care of the opposite party, he was advised to ‘Update’ the phone for getting the said facility.  Though he tried this several times, the problem persisted and even the service personnel could not rectify the same inspite of his several visits to their customer care centre.  His contacts with the Samsung Service Care and personal visits to their Service Centre in Thrissur also did not produce any fruitful result and the defect continued.  Hence he filed this complaint seeking refund of the cost of the mobile phone and a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-

2.   Notice was issued to the opposite party.  They entered appearance, but failed to file version within the statutory period.  Hence the version was rejected and they were set ex-parte.  The IA filed by the opposite party against the rejection of their version was also dismissed by this Commission.              

3.   The case was referred to Settlement held on 24/06/2022, 24/02/2023, 31/03/2023 and 28/04/2023, but a settlement could not be reached.       

4.   The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 to A11 as evidence.  All the evidences were objected to on the ground that they are not accompanied by Section 65(B) certification under evidence Act.  However there was no allegation that they are forged or concocted.  Ext. A1 is order placed and A2 is the tax invoice for the mobile phone in question.  All other Exhibits are either printouts or screenshots of various correspondence made between the complainant and the opposite party for the purpose of redressing his grievance as stated above.                     

5.   All the correspondences made by the complainant since registering the complaint clearly shows that the complainant had been making all efforts to get his grievance resolved for several months inspite of which the defect of the phone remained uncured and no proper explanation has been given.  Hence this is clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.   

6.   In the result the complaint is allowed.  As the complainant is not interested to get replacement of phone as expressed in the proof affidavit, the following reliefs are ordered

1. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards deficiency in service/unfair trade practice and
2. Rs. 15,000/- as cost.

The 1^st opposite party shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which 1^st opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

Pronounced in open court on this the 31^st day May, 2023.

                                                                                               Sd/-       

                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                       President 

                                                                Sd/-

                                                        Vidya A

                                  Member   

                                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                     Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                           Member

Appendix

Documents marked from the side of the Complainant:

Ext. A1:   Screenshot of Order details with order ID: OD122406874558651000.

Ext. A2:   Tax Invoice dated 25/07/2021 for Rs. 17,999/-

Ext. A3:   Screenshot of service request registration with number 4339087849.

Ext. A4:   Screenshot of service request registration with number 4337099888.

Ext. A5:   Screenshot of message received from Samsung Customer Care.

Ext. A6:   Screenshot of message received from Samsung Customer Care.

Ext. A7:   E-mail sent to Nilgiri Store dated 13/02/2022.

Ext. A8:   E-mail sent to Nilgiri Store dated 13/02/2022.

Ext. A9:   E-mail sent to Nilgiri Store dated 13/02/2022.

Ext. A10: E-mail sent to Nilgiri Store dated 13/02/2022.

Ext. A11: E-mail sent to Nilgiri Store dated 13/02/2022.

Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil

Witness examined: Nil

Cost: Rs. 15,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.