Consumer court helps buyer stuck with faulty Samsung mobile

2trump

Muthukumar,
from Tirunelveli, had to complain to the consumer court about the Customer Service Engineer, Samsung Service Center, Sree Hare Marketing,
127/1, V.V..Tower, Tiruvananthapuram, Palayamkottai in May 2016. It did not help him and was rude to him when he asked them to repair his Samsung mobile phone when it stopped working within two months of buying it. It was within the warrenty period.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum President was Thiru R. Killivalavan.

The complainant purchased Samsung Sm-G 530 HZ WDINS (Grand Prime) IMEI No.356554068103247 mobile phone from the Apoorva Mobile shop on 30.04.2015 for a sum of Rs. 14,000/-. Within two months of purchase the mobile phone stopped working. When he complained the Apoorva mobile shop owner told him that warranty was available, hence the phone could be repaired by the Samsung Service Centre. On 3.9.2015 he gave the mobile phone to the Service Centre which issued a job sheet and told him they would inform him over phone when it was repaired.

red3

But he waited in vain for five days. Finally he went to the Samsung service centre which told him the phone could not be rectified and asked him to take it to the mobile shop where he bought it, to rectify the problem or throw the phone in the Thamirabarani river! The complainant contacted the Samsung head office and informed them about his problem. They assured him that within a month a new mobile phone would be given to him. But six months later he was still waiting to hear from them and the new phone never arrived! He contacted them several times but in vain. They did not even return his own phone!


He complained to the consumer forum that he purchased Samsung Sm-G 530 HZ

WDINS (Grand Prime) IMEI No.356554068103247 mobile phone from the Apoorva Mobile shop on 30.04.2015 for a sum of Rs. 14,000/-. Within two months of purchase the mobile phone become faulty and not functioning. Then his problems began with the service centre and the Samsung head office! They did not appear to give their version of the matter in court which found them guilty of deficient service.

It ordered the Samsung service centre to give a mobile in good working condition to the complainant along with Rs. 13,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and costs.

garden3

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s