Haryana

Kaithal

132/21

Ajay Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

City Heart Mobile Shoppe - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Hem Raj Wadhwa

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.132/2021.

                                                     Date of institution: 03.06.2021.

                                                     Date of decision:24.03.2023.

Ajay Singh (Aadhar Card No.2444 8543 6297) S/o Sh. Bharpoor Singh r/o Village Kabarchha, Tehsil Narwana, Distt. Jind through his Special Power of Attorney Manoj Kumar aged 26 years s/o Sh. Darbara Singh r/o V.P.O. Geong, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. City Heart Mobile Shoppe, G-24, Lala Lajpat Rai Shopping Complex, Kaithal through its Prop./Partner.
2. Unique Mobile Solutions Samsung Authorized Service-Centre, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. near Patanjali Mega Store, KKR Road, Kaithal through its prop./partner, Mob.No.99962-39666.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office, 6^th Floor DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its M.D.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

                Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the OP No.3.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Ajay Singh through his Special Power of Attorney Manoj Kumar-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had purchased a mobile set make Samsung S20FE bearing No.358818744162986 for the sum of Rs.44,999/- from the OP No.1 vide invoice No.1434 dt. 31.10.2020.  The case of complainant is that after the purchase of said mobile, the said mobile set became defective on 26.10.2021 as the lock button came out from the said mobile, meet was closed automatically because mobile set was causing overheat.  It is further alleged that due to overheating problem, mobile is not working and became dead.  The complainant requested the Ops to repair or replace the defective mobile set with the new one but the OPs did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared before this Commission, whereas OPs No.1 & 2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 24.03.2022 of this Commission.  OP No.3 contested the complaint by filing written version raising preliminary objections that as per the records of the answering OP, the complainant has not registered any complaint to the service-centre of answering OP.  It is submitted that the answering Op has an online system to enter all claims/complaints vide IEMI/Sr. No. in each and every case but in the present complaint as per limited details mentioned in the complaint, no complaint number or valid contact number has been provided by the complainant and for the reason, no details found in the online system of the answering OP which means that then complainant has never registered any complaint with any of the service-centre of the answering OP; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint.  He argued that the complainant had purchased a mobile set make Samsung S20FE bearing No.358818744162986 for the sum of Rs.44,999/- from the OP No.1 vide invoice No.1434 dt. 31.10.2020.  It has been further argued that the said mobile set became defective on 26.10.2021 as the lock button came out from the said mobile, meet was closed automatically because mobile set was causing overheat.  It has been further argued that due to overheating problem, mobile is not working and became dead.  The complainant requested the Ops to repair or replace the defective mobile set with the new one but the OPs did not redress the grievances of complainant.  There is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

7.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.3 raised objection that the present complaint was filed by the complainant namely Ajay Singh through Special Power of Attorney namely Manoj Kumar.  Manoj Kumar is neither consumer nor user of mobile set in question.  He has further argued that the complainant has not registered any complaint to the service-centre of OPs.  He has further argued that the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant on 31.10.2020 and the same became defective on 26.10.2021 i.e. at the end of warranty period.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  We find force in the objections raised by ld. counsel for the OP No.3.  It is clear that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question on 31.10.2020 and he himself has mentioned in para No.3 of the complaint that the said mobile set because defective on 26.10.2021 which means that the complainant has used the mobile set in question approximately 12 months.  Moreover, the complainant has not placed on file any job-card which could prove that the mobile set was defective and he had approached the OPs for removal of defects from the mobile set but he did not do so. 

9.             Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.  There is no order as to costs.  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 in open court:

Dt.:24.03.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.