BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.96/14.
Date of instt.: 08.05.2014.
Date of Decision: .2015.
Narender Gupta s/o Sh. Radhey Lal r/o Pooj Mohalla, Kaithal, Tesil & Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Bansal International, Kurukshetra Road, Kaithal through its owner/proprietor.
2. Samsung Customer Service, 2nd floor, Town CC. Vipul Tech. Square, Sector 43, Gurgaon.
3. Luxmi Agency, SCO 365, Ist Floor, Mugal Canal Market, Karnal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Sachin Jain, Advocate for complainant.
Op No.1 already exparte.
Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.2 & 3.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a Samsung Laptop having Sr.No.JAKV91RD300232K vide invoice No.425 dt. 25.07.2013 for a sum of Rs.24,500/- from the Op No.1. It is alleged that just after some days of purchase, the said Laptop started giving some problem. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.1 and Op No.1 referred the complainant to Op No.3 or to call on toll free number. It is further alleged that the complainant made a complaint regarding said defect on toll free number and on that complaint on 16.12.2013, an authorized person came and he repaired the said Laptop. It is further alleged that after the removal of said defect, the said Laptop worked for few days, then again the problem arises in the said Laptop. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops several times for repair/replacement of said laptop but the Ops did not do so. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.2 & 3 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 28.10.2014. Ops No.2 & 3 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant never approached the answering Ops with any major complaint regarding the product as alleged in the complaint. It is further submitted that the answering Op No.2 is one of the renowned company in India and along with other products is engaging in business of manufacturing electronics and its sales. It is further submitted that till date, the answering Op has not received any single complaint from any of its customer, who are using the product manufactured of the answering Op of the same lot. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt. .2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
