Samsung selling GT-I9100G as GT-I9100 in India (crappier hardware version of Galaxy S II)
- Thread starter aviral sangal
- Start date
- Replies 67
- Views 27,020
prafulburde
Newbie
Hey thats gr8 that u got the cheque. I haven't even recieved a call from samsung regarding the issue... 
Had called up the akosha guys earlier today, they said they will get back in a couple of days regarding this. Aviral when did u get the call from samsung after you sent the letter to them and what was the total resolution time that was taken ? Was it within 15 days that they called you up ? The letter reached them on 13th Jan, another couple of days and it will be 15 days for me. What do i do if i dont get a response from them...??
Had called up the akosha guys earlier today, they said they will get back in a couple of days regarding this. Aviral when did u get the call from samsung after you sent the letter to them and what was the total resolution time that was taken ? Was it within 15 days that they called you up ? The letter reached them on 13th Jan, another couple of days and it will be 15 days for me. What do i do if i dont get a response from them...??
Nishant
Staff member
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Cellphone-maker-told-to-pay-customer-Rs-18k-for-inferior-model/articleshow/19485383.cms
Cellphone maker told to pay customer Rs 18k for inferior model
MUMBAI: Samsung India Pvt Ltd and its authorized dealer have been directed to pay Rs18,000 compensation to a Jogeshwari man for mental agony and harassment that ensued after he was handed over a phone which turned out to be of an inferior model. The company will also have to give him a phone of the superior model.
Rizwan Khatri had purchased a Samsung Galaxy SII GT-I9100 mobile phone from Zoop, an authorized dealer of the mobile phone company, on December 31, 2011. Khatri paid Rs29,500 for the instrument. According to the complaint filed by Khatri in the South Mumbai District Consumer District Disputes Redressal Forum on April 11, 2012, on the payment receipt, the model number was shown as GT-I9100. However, the box handed over to him after purchase contained a phone with model GT-I9100G, which is inferior.
Khatri alleged that the GT-I9100G model was slower compared to GT-I9100 in various benchmark tests. Additionally, it had a poor 3D performance. He stated that through evidence submitted along with the complaint, it is proved that Samsung Galaxy SII GT-I9100G and GT-I9100 were not only different models but GT-I9100G was inferior, with a lower performing chipset and various utilities, applications and games do not work on the GT-I9100G model.
Khatri said that on January 10, 2012 he had informed the company about not providing the correct model. According to Khatri, the company made a false and misleading statement and informed him that both models had the same features and specifications, except for the chipset manufacture. He was informed that the change in model number was only because of inter-coding of the company and has no bearing on the phone's functioning. Khatri said the company had offered to replace the phone without compensation or damages. He alleged that in a similar case, the company had replaced the phone and compensated a customer. (aviral, this could be youlayful: )
The company appeared only once at the forum. Following the prolonged absence, the forum decided to pass the order ex parte. The forum held the company and dealer guilty. "The case made out by the complainant that he was unable to use the functions which were important in his professional work on daily basis and sustained loss and damages in his work and thereby suffered mental agony can be said proved," the forum said.
The firm said both models had the same features, except for the chipset.
aviral sangal
Senior
Actually I took the whole money refund and didn't get any compensation. My dad didn't allow to file a case
And Samsung is the biggest smartphone seller!
