Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 147.
Instituted on : 07.03.2017.
Decided on : 30.07.2018.
Krishan Kumar s/o Sh.Jai Bhagwan, R/o H.No.637, Sector-2, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Galaxy Mobiles Shop no.121, Sector 2-3, Market, Near Jat Bhawan, Rohtak.
- B2X Service Centre Samsung Customer Care, Jain mansion, Near Gymkhana Club, HUDA Complex Rohtak, through its Manager.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.(Head Office) 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122201.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.K.Barak Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Kunal Juneja, counsel for OP No.2 & 3.
Opposite parties No.1 exparte.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a mobile phone from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.8200/- on 12.04.2016 with one year warranty. That just after few days of purchase it started creating problems and within six months its voice become slow and android system was not working. That complainant approached the opposite party No.2 but they did not provide any job sheet or complaint number regarding this. That despite repair the phone could not work properly. That complainant requested the OPs either to refund the price or to replace the same but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to make the payment of Rs.8200/- alongwith interest besides compensation qua mental harassment etc. and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to OP No.1 received back served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1. As such opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.04.2017 of this Forum. Ld. counsel for OP no.2 & 3 has submitted that answering OP has a system to lodge online complaint for each and every IMEI/Sr.No. but in the present complaint, as per limited details provided, no complaint has been found registered with the answering opposite party, in regards to the unit of the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for OP No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and has closed his evidence.
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 except the bill and legal notice, complainant has not placed on record any job sheet, not mentioned any online complaint number in the complaint. As per the reply and affidavit filed by the OPs, no complaint has been found registered with the answering opposite party in their online system. Hence without any cogent evidence, this complaint fails with no order as to costs.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
30.07.2018.
................................................
Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
..........................................
Ved Pal, Member.
