CHENNAI: A much vexed consumer will now laugh all the way to the bank. A consumer court in the city has awarded him 53,000 as compensation after he purchased a defective mobile phone worth 6,700, which was not repaired by the manufacturer despite more than 150 calls.
K Ponselvam of Thirumullaivoyal said he had purchased a XOLO mobile phone on June 23, 2013. While the phone had one year warranty, battery, charger and head phone had six months warranty. Within the warranty period, the phone started malfunctioning. He approached the seller, Univercell Telecommunications, and was asked to give the phone at the authorised customer service centre in Kilpauk.
He handed over the mobile on September 19 and received it 12 days later. A month after the repairs, it again malfunctioned. He gave the phone to the customer service centre on November 7, 2013. As the staff there did not give him a proper reply, he sent a representation to the centre's head on November 18. Next day, he received a reply saying his complaint has been registered. But, despite calling the centre more than 150 times, there was no reply.
Ponselvam then contacted the customer service department head of XOLO, but to no avail. He then sent a legal notice to the mobile manufacturer and the seller. As there was no reply, he moved the district consumer disputes redressal forum (North Chennai).
A bench of president K Jayabalan and member T Kalaiyarasi said though the mobile seller had received the notice, it did not appear before the forum. The manufacturer appeared but failed to file a written reply.
The bench said, "Evidence shows that the customer service centre had failed to rectify the defect." The forum directed them to refund the cost of the phone along with 50,000 as compensation for mental agony and 3,000 as costs.
K Ponselvam of Thirumullaivoyal said he had purchased a XOLO mobile phone on June 23, 2013. While the phone had one year warranty, battery, charger and head phone had six months warranty. Within the warranty period, the phone started malfunctioning. He approached the seller, Univercell Telecommunications, and was asked to give the phone at the authorised customer service centre in Kilpauk.
He handed over the mobile on September 19 and received it 12 days later. A month after the repairs, it again malfunctioned. He gave the phone to the customer service centre on November 7, 2013. As the staff there did not give him a proper reply, he sent a representation to the centre's head on November 18. Next day, he received a reply saying his complaint has been registered. But, despite calling the centre more than 150 times, there was no reply.
Ponselvam then contacted the customer service department head of XOLO, but to no avail. He then sent a legal notice to the mobile manufacturer and the seller. As there was no reply, he moved the district consumer disputes redressal forum (North Chennai).
A bench of president K Jayabalan and member T Kalaiyarasi said though the mobile seller had received the notice, it did not appear before the forum. The manufacturer appeared but failed to file a written reply.
The bench said, "Evidence shows that the customer service centre had failed to rectify the defect." The forum directed them to refund the cost of the phone along with 50,000 as compensation for mental agony and 3,000 as costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment