|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A couple of years ago, Australian consumer group Choice investigated into the quality of after-sales service provided by mobile phone manufacturers in Australia. The findings are so similar to the situation faced by the people here that I thought it would be interesting to quote Choice on this. This is the list of complaints that Choice came up with: (a) Long repair periods; (b) no loan phone (retailers aren’t obliged to provide a loan phone. Some do, though you may need to leave a deposit); (c) ineffective repairs; (d) companies passing the buck and giving customers the run-around; (e) customers being blamed for damage they believe they didn’t cause;(f) details such as contact lists and photos erased during the repairs process; (g) clients locked into contracts, forcing them to pay monthly fees while their phone is being repaired, and sometimes for faulty phones that can’t be fixed; and (h) clients being denied their rights by retailers. Sounds familiar, isn’t it? This in a nutshell, covers the kind of problems that Indian consumers, too, face with defective and malfunctioning mobile phones. So what needs to be done? Let us examine some of the suggestions made by Choice. First and foremost, it suggests (a) a wider jurisdiction for the telecommunications industry Ombudsman, making it a one-stop shop to help people who have mobile phone complaints; (b) introduction of a mobile phone customer service guarantee covering timelines for fixing faults and handling complaints (one already exists for landlines); (c) strong action by fair trading agencies where retailers systematically try to avoid their responsibilities to consumers — such as saying physical damage isn’t covered by the warranty even when the person didn’t cause the damage. We could certainly adopt some of these suggestions, keeping in mind the Indian laws and regulations vis-`E0-vis consumer protection. For example, the Consumer Protection Act in India gives the people the right to be protected against defective goods and deficient after-sales service. It also gives the consumer the right to a replacement or a refund (the choice is that of the client) if a product turns out to be defective. In fact, the courts constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have time and again chastised the trade and industry for trying to repair a new product, instead of acknowledging the manufacturing defect and giving a replacement. The courts have also amicably resolved many disputes pertaining to mobile phones and ensured that customers got a defect-free replacements. However, the system of redress under the Consumer Protection Act is slow and the compensation slapped on manufacturers is not large enough to make an impact. So what we need urgently is an independent industry Ombudsman to settle disputes pertaining to mobile instruments in a simple and quick manner, without the intervention of lawyers. The Telecommunication Department should impress upon the industry body to provide such an alternate dispute resolution mechanism and, if necessary, bring in a law to enforce it. Second, mobile instruments should be brought under the purview of the telecommunication regulator, so that stringent quality norms for after-sales service are drafted. For example, if the instrument has any inherent defect, the manufacturer should immediately acknowledge it and give a replacement or a refund without delay. Third, whenever a mobile
instrument is handed over to the service centre for repairs, the
client should be given a service mobile of a similar model till the
mobile is repaired. Fourth, there should be a time limit for repairs
and the service centre should stick to it. Any delay beyond that point
should result in the service centre paying compensation to the
consumer for every day of delay. If defects persist despite repairs,
the instrument should be classified as a ‘lemon’ as they do in the
US in respect of cars, and the customer should be given a new
replacement. Lastly, the warranties and guarantees of cell-phone
manufacturers should be drafted in such a way that they have no escape
clauses, and the terms and conditions are absolutely fair to both the
parties. The regulator should also audit the after sales-service of
different mobile manufacturers, rate them on the basis of the audit,
and make it public. This would not only force manufacturers to pull up
their socks and pay more attention to resolving consumer complaints,
but also help people make an informed choice.
|
|||
|
|
|||
