Dear Sir/Madam,
In reference to the delivery of above mentioned order
number, I would like to bring this into your kind notice that the order was
delivered to my house on 2070/04/06 at 5.45 PM. The delivery people installed
the TV which at that time could not be checked for its ‘as is’ status due to
active load shedding schedule. We had made the payment and signed the
warranty card and ordered for the wall bracket with extra payment which was
delivered to us the following day.
Once mounted on the wall, we checked the Television set for
its status and found major problem with its audio system. Next day we
registered a complain to the service center which responded back the third day
of the 'complain registration' and sent a technician by the name of Mr. Tandukar
(surname) who on his examination confirmed our doubt and asked us to wait until
he does the required procedures. At that point we had asked if it could be
replaced to which he sternly denied and mentioned that the service center was responsible
for repairs only and suggested us to contact the place from where the bill
was issued.
After that we had made several calls to several people- among
which were –CG Digital Private Limited Branch UWTC from where the bill was
issued, your good office (the CG online service) and the service center itself. We were told that the
issue will be settled by Sunday as people were busy with ‘closing’. During the
conversation, we had an impression that the replacement was on its way, although by
Sunday.
Then we received a call on Sunday (2070/04/13) that someone
from service center was coming to collect the installed TV which they did. Mr.
Rajkumar Yadav collected the Television set and the original warranty card and
assured us that they would deliver the replacement by Monday between 10.30 and
11.30 PM. However instead of delivery we get this strange call from
Satungal Factory from a person (we do not know his name as he did not identify
himself.. Ref: 9813590893) who at the outset told us that they did not find any defect
with the Audio system and we should come to the factory to check it to get
satisfied with the product.
To this we reacted by saying it was us who first noticed the
audio defect which was confirmed by the technician who had visited us to
check. We confirmed our observation and stood by it. However the person from
the factory kept insisting that we (us and the technician) both could be wrong
in this particular instance. And also mentioned that once ‘Chalani’ is
done for a delivery it could not be changed or at least revoked.
It was quite surprising that how ‘the said person’ could conclude that
we were wrong in observing the audio defect specially when the technician from
CG’s own service center confirmed it. If so was the doubt raised about our‘customer integrity’, we could too doubt that the ‘audio system’ could have been
repaired in the factory.
But this would lead us nowhere bridging the void created by this mutual doubts between the company and the costumer. And hence request you to help us resolve
this matter.
At this point I would like to mention that we opted your
online service having a total faith in CG brand. We now feel that we are
exhausted and mentally drained out trying to figure out what can be done or who
is responsible for doing this. We have a serious doubt whether entitled to ask for a replacement for a delivery of a ‘defect piece’. at all
We sincerely acknowledge your early response resolving this
issue.
Thanking you and with kind regards
Yours sincerely
At the end we should be honest to mention that the company responded quick once the confusion created by service center was over. Though we had a tough time during these six days...the company responded well and we are satisfied with their explanation, we suggest them to be more vigilant on their service center which in our opinion is not run professionally!:))