Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/3/2017

Harish verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Giriraj Comm. - Opp.Party(s)

Jai singh Saini

21 Mar 2017

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/3/2017
 
1. Harish verma
Son of Niranjan Lal vpo 79 Indra Colony Bhiwani
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Giriraj Comm.
Maham Gate Bhiwani
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Rajesh Jindal PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Sudesh Dhillon MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Parmod Kumar MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 21 Mar 2017
Final Order / Judgement

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

 

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.03 of 17

                                         DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 03.01.2017

                                                   DATE OF ORDER: -07.06.2017

 

Harish Verma Advocate son of  Sh. Niranjan Lal, resident of H. No. 79, Indira Colony, Bhiwani, Chamber No. 608, Bhiwani.

 

           ……………Complainant.

VERSUS

 

  1. Giriraj Communication Meham Gate, Circular Road, Opp. Kajal Nursing Home, Bhiwani.

 

  1. Samsung Care Centre, First Floor, near Dinod Gate, Main Circular Road, Bhiwani.

 

  1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Tower C, Vipul Tech Square Golf Cource Road, Sector 43, Gurgaon.

 

 

………….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

 

BEFORE: -  Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

Mrs. Sudesh, Member

Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member

 

Present:-  Complainant in person.

                None for OP no. 1.

               OP no. 2 exparte.

      Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP no. 3.

 

ORDER:-

 

Rajesh Jindal, President:

 

                Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased mobile Samsung galaxy grand prime 4g of Rs. 10000/- on dated 11.11.2015 from OP no. 1.  It is alleged that after some days mobile have some problems and due to these problems the complainant went to the shop of OP no. 1 and told to him about these problems then he told your mobile in under guarantee period & your mobile would repair cost free from Samsung Care Centre.  It is alleged that the complainant went to the Samsung care centre and told to staff members of Samsung care centre about his mobile problems but they told in reply that their service center was not in working this time due to new staff selection purpose so you can come after some days and after that the complainant went to the Samsung Care Centre 2-3 times at the address of OP no. 2 but no solution were solved out.  It is alleged that on dated 01.11.2016 the complainant went to the Samsung Care Centre & told them about his mobile problem and deposited the same.  After two days the complainant received a message on mobile that dear Samsung customer the repair of your Samsung product has been completed but the problem was not resolved.  The complainant visited to the shop of OP no. 2 and requested to remove the fault of the mobile or to change with new one but the OP no. 2 deferred the matter on one pretext or the other.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint & prayed for seeking compensation.

2.                OP no. 2 has failed to come present.  Hence he was  proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.03.2017.

3.                OPs no. 2 & 3 filed written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent 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 details mentioned in the complaint, no details found in the online system of the answering respondent which means that complainant has never approached to the answering respondent which means that there is no problem in the unit and present complaint has been filed just to grab benefits illegally from the answering respondent.  It is submitted that the complainant is an advocate by profession and is a well literate person and very well aware of the fact that the details about services of the alleged unit i.e. complaint number etc. are necessarily to be provided in order to fetch details of complaint by the answering respondent out of its computerized records, but the complainant did not provide any aforesaid details.  It is submitted the complainant never approached to the answering respondents.  It is submitted that there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the answering respondents and the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2 & 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3 alongwith supporting affidavit.

5.                The complainant in person reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that he has purchased the mobile handset in question from OP no. 1 vide bill dated 11.11.2015 Annexure C-2.  He submitted that the mobile handset is not working properly.  The complainant approached the OP no. 2 for the repair of his mobile handset.  The complainant on 1.11.2016 deposited his mobile handset with OP no. 2 for repairs but the OP no. 2 failed to rectify the defect of the mobile handset of the complainant.

6.                Learned counsel for the OPs no. 2 & 3 reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that the complainant never approached the OP no. 3 for the alleged problem in his mobile handset.  He submitted that the mobile handset of the complainant is working properly.  The complainant has made false and baseless complaint and is liable to be dismissed.

7.                The mobile handset in question was purchased by the complainant vide bill Annexure C-2 on 11.11.2015.  The complainant has produced the job sheet Annexure C-3 for which he approached the OP no. 2 the service centre of the company on 01.11.2016 just about to complete one year after the purchase of the mobile handset.  Prior to this job sheet no other evidence has been adduced by the complainant regarding the defect in his mobile handset.  Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to rectify the defect in the mobile handset of the complainant, free of charge.  The complainant is directed to approach the service centre of the company within 15 days from the date of passing of this order and the OPs are directed to rectify the defect in the mobile handset of the complainant within 30 days. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 07.06.2017.                                              (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                    President,    

                                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                        Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

 

(Parmod Kumar)               (Sudesh)         

     Member.                           Member.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Rajesh Jindal]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sudesh Dhillon]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Parmod Kumar]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.