Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 405.
Instituted on : 12.07.2017.
Decided on : 29.01.2019.
Paramveer Hooda son of Sh. Ram Mehar Hooda r/o House No.1431/9, Near Hafed Gate, Sukhpura, Rohtak, aged 28 years, Mobile no.9812327732.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Dashmesh Khalsa Mobile, Gohana Adda, Gohana Road, Rohtak-124001, through its Prop.
- B2X Service Solution India Pvt. Ltd., Jain Mansion, HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001, through its Prop.(Samsung Care Centre).
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20th to 24th floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF Phase V Gurgaon, Haryana-122202 through its Managing Director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Vikas Nain, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No.2 & 3.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that complainant had purchased a Samsung mobile phone, model Samsung ON-5 Prime for a sum of Rs.8990/- from the respondent no.1 on dated 31.08.2016 vide bill receipt No.51216 dated 31.08.2016. That during warranty period, mobile has become defective during warranty period and not functioning properly as it has hang, auto off, heating and touch problem. That complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 24.05.2017 and after repair, the same was returned to the complainant on the same day but mobile phone again started heating and auto switch off problem. So complainant again deposited the handset for repairing on 07.06.2017 & 12.06.2017 but the defect could not be removed by the OPs so far. That the act of opposite parties of supplying a defective mobile phone to the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the mobile phone with new one or to return the amount of Rs.8990/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice, the opposite party No. 1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 31.08.2017 of this Forum. Opposite party no.2 & 3 appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that no complaint has been mentioned by the complainant and no details found in the online system of the answering opposite party which means that complainant has never approached the answering respondent or any of its authorized service centers. That there is no issue in the unit and the present complaint has been filed just to grab illegal money from the opposite party. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence on dated 30.08.2018. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 & 3 in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 and has closed his evidence on dated 03.01.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that complainant had purchased the mobile in question on dated 31.08.2016 and as per the reply to legal notice given by the OP, placed on record as Ex.C4, in para no.3 it has been admitted by the opposite party that the unit was repaired by the authorized service centre on 10.05.2017 and thereafter in 03.06.2017. But as per the complainant the unit is still not in working condition and has prayed for replacement/refund of the product.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed with direction to the OP No.3 i.e. manufacturer to give the brand new mobile set worth Rs.10500/-(towards cost of mobile set in question + litigation expenses) to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of replacement of mobile set by the opposite parties.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
29.01.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.