DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.173 of 15

                                         DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 12-06.2015

                                                   DATE OF ORDER: 30-03-2016

Suraj Chand son of Shri Naresh Kumar, resident of Maman Panna, House No. 34/39, Ward No. 16, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

            ……………Complainant.

VERSUS               

1. Heena Communication, Maharana Partap Chowk, Bhiwani.
2. Malik Communication, Samsung Mobile Service Centre, Shop No. 1, Ganpat Rai Maternity Home K Upar, Ghanta Ghar Chowk, Bhiwani through its Manager.
3. Samsung India Electronics Limited T, Tower C, Second Floor, Vipul Tek Square, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon through its General Manager.

………….. Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: -    Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.

  Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

Present:-   Complainant in person.

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

                 None for OP no. 1.

                 OP no. 2 exparte.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

          In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 06.06.2015 he had purchased one hand set of Samsung Galaxy Grand-2 for a sum of Rs. 14,500/- from OP no. 1. It is alleged that after the purchase of mobile handset was not in working condition.  The complainant visited the service centre of respondent company but to no avail.  Hence the complainant was deprived of use of the Hand Set and suffered a loss. Now the complainant has claimed the new Hand Set with compensation and costs by way of filing present complaint.

2.                 On appearance, Ops have filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has also filed another consumer complaint titled as Suraj Chand Vs. Malik Communication which is also pending before this Forum for 14.10.2015 regarding another model S 9500.  It is submitted that these facts on the part of the complainant clearly shows that the complainant is habitual litigant and has filed the present complaint just to grab benefits illegal from the answering OP.  It is submitted that the complainant regarding his complaint about the alleged handset never approached the service centre or the company.  It is submitted that the complainant inspiring from his ill will and greed has presented the false allegation about the alleged handset.  It is also submitted that the above alleged handset has no defect and merely by the oral version of the complainant it cannot be ascertain that the mobile is not working properly.  It is submitted that the company provides one year warranty and warranty means repairs not replacement.   Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

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

4.                     In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2 alongwith supporting affidavit.

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the complainant in person & learned counsel for the OPs.

6.                The complainant in person reiterated the contents of his complaint.  He submitted that he purchased the mobile handset in question from OP no. 1 for Rs. 14,500/- vide bill dated 06.06.2015 and the said mobile handset was not in working condition.

7.                The counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that the complainant is habitual in making false complaints against the mobile companies with a group of persons, who are indulged in making false complaints to grab money from the mobile companies by filing false and frivolous complaints.  He submitted that another complaint titled as Suraj Chand Vs. Malik Communication etc. for the mobile handset is also fixed today for arguments.  Previously, some complaints of the complainant regarding the mobile handset have already been decided in his favour.  He further submitted that the complainant is abusing the process of law.  He further submitted that how the complainant without looking the mobile handset and its working paid the amount to the OP no. 1, seller of the mobile handset.  He submitted that the complainant never approached to the service centre i.e. OP no. 2 nor made any complaint to OP no. 3.  Therefore, the allegation of the complainant is false and baseless.

8.                Admittedly, no job sheet has been produced by the complainant and as per the allegations of the complainant after the payment of the cost of the mobile handset to OP no. 1 he checked the mobile handset and found it was not in working condition.  Considering the facts of the case the OP no. 1, who has sold the mobile handset to the complainant and he is liable.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP no. 1 to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one and also to pay Rs. 500/- as cost to the complainant. 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:.30-03-2016.                                                                      (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                    President,      

                                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                        Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

                    (Ansuya Bishnoi),

                          Member