The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Goa, directed the manager, LeEco (LeTv), Bangalore, (opposite party no. 2) to refund the amount of Rs 14,999 to customer, Doreen Clara De Souza, Santimol-Raia, Salcete, on account of the mobile phone being faulty and defective.
As per the Forum order, LeEco is directed to refund the amount of Rs 14,999 with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum from the date of filing of the present claim, that is October 20, 2017, upo the date of actual payment of the amount to the complainant.
The Consumer Forum observed, “The complainant was also compelled to write many emails and made many phone calls to enquire about her phone. Her emails received automated replies which did not answer any of the queries raised by her. Her grievance was not redressed putting her through physical and mental agony, for which she deserves to be compensated.”
The Forum also directed LeEco (LeTv) and the Margao service center to pay compensation of Rs 3,000 to the complainant. De Souza had placed an order and purchased a ‘LeEco Le Max2’ mobile phone from the opposite party no.1, Flipkart for Rs 14,999. However right from the beginning the device started malfunctioning. Even the latest updates and applications like WhatsApp and Facebook failed to work forcing De Souza to take it to the service centre for testing and repairs.
The mobile handset was handed over on August 3, 2017 at the Margao branch service centre and on the delivery date the complainant was informed that the motherboard had to be replaced and a new one had to be ordered from the company. A date for collecting the mobile was given, however, on contacting customer care helpline, the complainant was informed that the job card given earlier was wrong.
The complainant addressed several emails to Flipkart, who neither acknowledged nor replied to the same. Emails sent to the customer care helpline of LeEco (LeTv), received automated and stereotype replies. Phone calls made to the customer care helpline of LeEco (LeTv) in order to enquire about the status of the phone received conflicting reports. The customer care helpline mentioned that the mobile handset was in Bangalore and on another occasion stated that it was in Delhi, whilst the service centre claimed it was still with them.
Neither party replied to the emails leaving the complaint with no option but to purchase a new mobile phone, which she purchased for a price of Rs 17,999. Subsequent to the purchase, on October 7, 2017, the complainant was informed by the service centre that the handset had been received from Delhi, was repaired and requested that the complainant take possession of the same, which she refused to do so as it was not returned on promised date and neither were her calls and emails requesting information about the status of the mobile phone or about the expected date of delivery replied to. The inordinate delay compelled the complainant to invest and purchase a new mobile.
The complaint was subject to physical and mental torture due to the poor quality and performance of the mobile. She had to make alternate arrangements for communicating on daily basis and made several trips to the service centre.