Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 397.
Instituted on : 11.07.2017.
Decided on : 23.01.2019.
Sandeep Kumar son of Sh. Jai Bhagwan resident of VPO Kheri Sampla Distt. Rohtak, age 30 years, Mobile No.9728000010.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Dashmesh Khalsa Mobile, Gohana Road, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- B2X, Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Jain Mansion, HUDA Complex, Rohtak(Authorised Service Centre) through its Proprietor/Manager.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044 through its 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.Sandeep Kaushik, 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 he had purchased a mobile Samsung Note 5 IMEI No.355909070197366 from the respondent no.1 and paid Rs.46000/- vide bill no.47843 dated 14.07.2016 with one year warranty/guarantee. That under the warranty period, the said mobile has become defective and not functioned properly as it was having heating and battery problem. That complainant contacted the opposite parties and officials of the opposite party No.2 on inspection of said mobile kept the same vide job sheet dated 05.06.2017 and later on handed over the said phone after some days to the complainant on the ground that the mobile phone seems to have manufacturing defects therein and the same is not rectifiable and refused to do anything. That complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the mobile phone or to refund the price but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties of selling a defective mobile to the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the mobile phone with new one or to refund the price of mobile phone alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice, the opposite party No.1 did not appear despite service and as such opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.08.2017 of this Forum. Opposite party No.2 & 3 appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that complainant had approached the opposite party vide complaint no.4214918920 on 06.05.2017 i.e. after around 10 months from the date of purchase and reported display heating and black glass issue in the unit. That the engineer of the opposite party resolved the issue by replacement of SUB P.B.A. and TAPE of the alleged unit and complainant took the delivery of the unit to his full satisfaction. After that, complainant never reported any such issue and without any cause of action directly filed the present complaint. It is averred that the answering opposite parties are still ready to repair the unit as per the warranty policy, so there is no deficiency in the part of answering opposite parties. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal the complaint qua the OP No. 2 & 3.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence on dated 11.01.2018. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 & 3 in their evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and has closed his evidence on dated 09.05.2018.
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 14.07.2016 and after about 10 months of its purchase, some defects appeared in the mobile set. As per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 06.05.2017, there were problems of heating & battery drain and the defects were removed by the opposite party/service centre. The complainant gave Feedback form dated 11.05.2017 placed on record as Ex.R3 and as per experience column, he has chosen “Very much satisfied”. The signatures of the complainant on the job sheet Ex.C2 tally with the feedback form Ex.R3 which shows that after repair of the mobile set by the opposite party, the complainant took the delivery of the mobile to his full satisfaction. Thereafter no complaint has been filed by the complainant with the opposite parties.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Copy of this of and the order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
23.01.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
