THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE HON'BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMISSION AT HOOGHLY

COMPLAINT NO. .............. OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF :

SHIV PRATAP
MANI TIWARI S/O Harendra Nath Tiwari

Bandel Netaji Park-1

P.O. Bandel, P.S. Chinsurah

Dist. Hooghly PIN- 712123

West Bengal

Contact- 8100308832

………………………Complainant

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

20th to 24th Floor,

 Two Horizon Centre,

Golf Course Road,

Sector-43,

DLF PH-V,

Gurgaon 122202,

Haryana , India

AND

S.S. Telecom

BISHALAXMITALA,

P.O. AND DIST. HOOGHLY,

P.S. CHINSURAH,

PIN-712103 (WEST BENGAL)

AND

Vaishno Telecom,

BINA COMPLEX,

366, KHALISANI,

HOOGHLY, 712136

……………………..Opposite Party
 COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 (Before District Comission ) OF
THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Most Respectfully Sheweth:

1. That the complainant is a law abiding citizen of India with permanent

hearth and home at the aforesaid address.

2. That the complainant is an advocate by profession and a Hindu by

faith aged about 28 years.

3. That the complainant had purchased a mobile phone bearing model

SAMSUNG GALAXY S20 FE 5G from one authorized dealers (Opposite
Party/ Respondent No. 2) , with the IMEI of the phone bearing
number- 1) 352659951916136 2)352963921916139 on
09/10/2021 (As bearing Annexure No. A attached herein with the
complaint).
4. That while the phone was under use it was giving its regular and due
service as is should have rendered but however a few months later
while the phone being under warranty period became immobile with
the screen blackened out since 3-04-2022 while the phone was under
a normal use.
5. That the screen or the phone had no heating issues to be specific and
randomly blackened out without any rhymes or reasons.
6. That the cost of the phone is valued in the Annexure A billed at
Rupees 49,999 (Forty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine
only).
7. That the phone was priced at such high value was indeed advertised
well for its growth of sales and all purposes and which was brought
the same for the Complainant/ Petitioner’s personal use.
8. That wether or not in the scenario of the lapse of the warranty, it is
impossible for the Complainant/ Petitioner to know such technical
know how’s as to the functioning of the phone and therefore bears the
difficulty of lack of technical expertise.
9. That the question for became quite an evident of prima facie, as to
how was the phone damaged bearing such high cost and usage of
hardly 8 months?
10. That the same was notified to the dealer (Opposite Party/
Respondent No.2) S.S. Telecom located at BISHALAXMITALA, P.O.
AND DIST. HOOGHLY, P.S. CHINSURAH, PIN-712103 (WEST
BENGAL) to which they failed to give any heed and were not
responsive.
11. That on repeated requests made by the Complainant/
Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.2 agreed to take the damaged phone
to the service center the following day as assistance and to which the
next day he provided an endorsement to the same effect that the
phone was taken. (Annexure ‘B’)
12. That he came to deliver the phone back in the evening saying
that due to software issues the phone was facing such problems. The
software issue as claimed by him was now adjusted and cleared and
the phone was ready for use. The phone on being handed over to the
Complainant/ Petitioner, was with an erased memory as a standard
procedure to which the complainant lost all the saved filed in the local
memory along with all his books and legal papers to which he
consults and keep updated with his clients.
13. That later in the evening again the said phone suffered from the
same blackening out of screen to which the entire night the
 Complainant/ Petitioner’s phone was switched off and unresponsive.
This made him lose contacts with the next day of my job and he had
to take the day off leaving all proceedings and attending the service
center of the opposite party No 1.
14. That on 05/04/2022 at 12:25 Hrs. the Complainant/ Petitioner
handed my phone to counter number one of the authorized service
center (008202919) at Vaishno Telecom, Bina Complex, 366,
Khalisani, Hooghly (Opposite Party No.3)
15.

That at the event of handing over the Complainant/ Petitioner’s

phone, the SIM Tray was removed, and they told him to wait for half
an hour to complete the valid checks to which he patiently waited.

That at around 12:40 the Opposite Party No.3 issued the

Complainant/ Petitioner a statement, verbal in nature that the
technician was to conduct ELS Test and the same would lead to his
submission of the phone in their custody. The Opposite Party No.3
accepted the fact that if any part was not available then the Opposite
Party No.3 would have to bring it and the said Mobile phone would be
submitted to their custody.

That being no way out the Complainant/ Petitioner had to agree to the
submission of the phone which he had updated it from the backup
and was left with no choice but to lose all his contacts and other
backed up items along with his phone entirely and was left at the
helms of the technical experts working under Opposite Party No. 3

That in accordance of the said failure and the same effort to mend it,
the Complainant/ Petitioner was provided a job sheet (as Opposite
Party No. 3 had termed) bearing bill No 4344744456 and was told to
enquire two days later. (Herein attached as Annexure ‘C’).

That in those two days the Complainant/ Petitioner had no backup

device with contacts or anything whatsoever and he miserably
suffered loss in his professional arena to be kept in mind that he had
paid a huge sum of money to purchase the same to avoid such
hassles.

That after two days the Complainant/ Petitioner was notified that his
phone was repaired to which the Opposite Party No. 3 did not provide
the Complainant/ Petitioner any reply as to what issue had occurred,
while in the job sheet the issue was mentioned as “SOME TIME
DISPLAY BLANK”. On asking about any issue, the Opposite Party No.
3 said they had replaced the Screen, the Battery and the back panel
and assured me that nothing would occur further. They further lured
the Complainant/ Petitioner into their offer to purchase their extended
warranty to which he politely denied.

That after the phone was received, the Complainant/ Petitioner again
had to update and install everything from scratch for the third time in
a row.

After one day of use however the Complainant/ Petitioner found out
that my battery was draining at a super-fast rate. A 5000 m-AH
battery draining at such high speed seemed abnormal. That the
charging also became super slow and took 4 hours to charge the
device. This repeated hassled and the harassment that the
Complainant/ Petitioner faced made him completely deprived of
motivation to again go to the center and submit his phone and again
start from scratch.

That the liability was on the phone manufacturer (Opposite Party No.
1) to provide a phone at such price that worked at least to be very
basic and in simple terms. That it was also the duty of the authorized
seller. (Opposite Party No. 2) to sell a unit which at least pertains to
good standards on their faith and not cheat the consumers of their
hard-earned money. It was the same duty of the service center
(Opposite Party No.3) to duly recognize that the phone still had issues
and that the work done by them was malafide and incomplete just to
harass and make me visit them leaving the Complainant/ Petitioner
work in the scorching summer heat after which wait for a few days
without the digital device for which the Opposite Party No.1 charged
rupees fifty thousand.

That later on being advised to visit the customer care service center
one, by all means in reasonable foresight should have known that on
the purchase of such a high-end phone, the Opposite Parties 1, 2 and
3 owe responsibility on an ethical sense and a due process must be
followed to prevent this harassment to the Complainant/ Petitioner
who was at the complete faith of the seller for him to deliver a good
which was not malafide in any respect whatsoever.

It is a saddening thing to bear the fact that the Complainant/

Petitioner’s phone still bears huge technical issues of repeated
charging and abnormal battery drain along with frequent screen
blackouts and his profession being that of an advocate really have no
choice rather that to wait for the service center (Opposite Party No.3)
to keep his phone and repair it on their own leisure and being
deprived of the Complainant/ Petitioner’s professional life due to the
negligence of the company and the seller (Opposite Part 1 and 2).

That here the Complainant/ Petitioner had important clients to keep

upto their commitments so he had purchased a phone which would be
smooth in operation and did not deserve to be handed a piece of junk
which vitiates the core relationship of the customer-seller corner
bounds.

That later on losing all hopes and the huge sum of money behind the
digital device along with the valuable time of the Complainant/
Petitioner, he served a notice to all the Opposite Parties which were
duly delivered on ___________ to get a response before seeking the
shelter of you Honor.

That the 15 day window expired to which neither of the Opposite

Parties turned up to make up for this malice in its commitment to
 deliver quality made goods and later on dump malafide products after
a hefty charge.

That the notice is also attached herein along with the postal receipt
and the track report and considering fact of mental agony suffered
from the Complainant/ Petitioner’s side and the fact that this lapse of
technical fault and untimely and erratic service with unresponsive
behavior from a technical giant (Opposite Party No. 1 has resulted in a
total loss of communication from the side of the Complainant/
Petitioner to his clients hampering their due process in the court of
law.

That in the event of the failure of 15 days to heed to the humble

requests of the Complainant/ Petitioner, he now begs before your
Learned Commission as he has no other choice.

16. That this cause of action arose to file this complaint on

………………….after serving a notice to the Respondent/ Opposite
Party bank on ………………., to which they did not offer any
approach/reply in the stipulated time frame of 15 days after receiving
it and the postal attachment is kept with this complaint.

17. That in lieu of the years of mental harassment and agony along
with the deficiency of services on the account of the Respondent/
Opposite Party 1, 2 and 3, the Petitioner/ Complainant submits its
claim fore with mentioned below.

18. The Petitioner/ Complainant submits his claim as under

 The loss suffered due to the wilful negligence and denial of service
by the Respondent/ Opposite Party 1, 2 and 3 amounting to
Rupees 50,000 (Rupees fifty Thousand).
 Compensation for mental torture and harassment and the years of
agony amounting to rupees 20,000 (Rupees twenty Thousand).
  Expenses incurred in postal charges, correspondence and legal
fulfilments amounting to rupees 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand).

19. That the Learned Comission has the jurisdiction to entertain

this complaint.

20. That the claim is within the limitation period from which the
cause of action arises.

21. That the Complainant prays that this Hon'ble Commission may
be pleased to pass an order directing the Opposite Party 1, 2 and 3 to
pay a sum of Rs. 85, 000 on account of loss and compensation
claimed by the Complainant with interest from the date of the
complaint upto the date of payment along with the cost of the
complaint and such further relief as this Forum may consider
appropriate and fit in the circumstances of the case.

Annexure Table:-

A Billing Statement Of the Said Mobile

Phone That was purchased by the
Complainant/ Petitioner.
B Endrosment Of Opposite Party No 3
regarding the return of the phone to
the Complainant/ Petitioner
C Jobsheet as handed over by the
Opposite Party No. 3
D Notice served by the Complainant/
Petitioner to the Opposite Parties
1,2 and 3
E Track Report of the aforesaid
 notices

………………………………..

Complainant/
Petitioner

Affidavit:-

I SHIV PRATAP MANI TIWARI s/o HARENDRA NATH TIWARI, the

complainant, herein verify that contents of paras 1 to 18 are true to
my knowledge, that of para 19 to para 22 are based on legal advice of
my own profession and knowledge of law, which I believe to be true
and that of para _______ is my prayer to this Forum.

Date: …………..

………………………

Complainant