Haryana

Kurukshetra

283/2018

Paras Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jai Maa Commnication - Opp.Party(s)

Ashwani Goel

27 Apr 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:     283 of 2018.

                                                                   Date of institution:         18.12.2018.

                                                                   Date of decision:  27.04.2022

 

Paras Saini s/o Shri Rajender Kumar, aged about 15 years (minor), through his mother Smt. Jyoti Rani w/o Shri Rajender Kumar, r/o village Bishangarh, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Jai Maa Communication, near Bhadarkali Mandir Chowk, Jhansa Road Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra through its Partner/Proprietor.
2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 6^th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110001.
3. Samsung Authorized Service Centre, Plot No.4, Ground Floor, Raj Market, Opp. Harsh Cinema, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra.

 

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Ashwani Goel, Advocate for the complainant.               

                   Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 ex-parte, vide order dated 11.10.2021.

                   Shri Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “Act”).

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile phone set make Samsung J6+ bearing IMEI No.352682104847115 from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.15000/- vide bill No.2503 dated 11.11.2018. The said mobile phone was manufactured by OP No.2 and OP no.3 is authorized service centre of OP No.2. The mobile phone was having manufacturing defect from the very beginning and there was defect in the Software of it, due to which, the mobile phone used to change ringtones itself and its display was also defective, as lines are shown on the screen and not showing the display. In this regard, the complainant approached to OP No.3, who initially assured to rectify the fault of the mobile phone, but after that, it refused to rectify the fault as well as to issue the job card and also demanded Rs.3000/- for rectification of fault of mobile phone. Thereafter, the complainant visited many times to the OPs and requested to replace the mobile phone within warranty period, but they failed to redress his grievance, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs, causing him mental agony, harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.                On receipt of complaint, its notice was ordered against all the OPs. Initially, the OP No.1 appeared in person on 28.01.2019, but thereafter, on 15.03.2021, it failed to appear before the Commission. Since till then, service of notice upon OP No.3 was also not completed, therefore, separate notices were issued to OP No.1 and OP No.3 also, but on 11.10.2021, neither the OP No.1 nor OP No.3 appeared before the Commission, and by following the legal procedure, they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte on that date, by this Commission.

4.                OP No.2 appeared before the Commission and filed its written statement raising preliminary objections regarding cause of action and maintainability. On merits, it is submitted that the OP provides one year warranty on the unit from the date of purchase of unit and also warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced, as per warranty policy. There is no proof regarding reporting the defect in the unit (if any) i.e. any job sheet has been furnished by the complainant as envisaged u/s 13 (10 (c) of the Act to prove the allegations made by the complainant regarding deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OPs was and is still ready to provide services to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the warranty policy. The complainant never approached to the OP No.2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it with heavy costs.  

5.                The complainant, in support of his complaint tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with document Ex.C-1 and closed his evidence.

6.                On the other hand, the OP No.2, in support of its case, tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with document Ex.R-1 and closed its evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well carefully.

8.                Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that on 11.11.2018, the complainant purchased a mobile phone set make Samsung J6+ from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.15000/-. The mobile phone was having manufacturing defect from the very beginning and there was defect in the Software of it, due to which, the mobile phone used to change ringtones itself and its display was also defective, as lines are shown on the screen and not showing the display. In this regard, the complainant approached to OP No.3, who refused to rectify the fault as well as to issue the job card and also demanded Rs.3000/- for rectification of fault of mobile phone. Thereafter, the complainant visited many times to the OPs and requested to replace the mobile phone within warranty period, but they failed to redress his grievance.

9.                Learned counsel for OP No.2 argued that there is no proof regarding reporting the defect in the unit (if any) i.e. any job sheet has been furnished by the complainant as envisaged u/s 13 (10 (c) of the Act to prove the allegations made by the complainant regarding deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OPs was and is still ready to provide services to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the warranty policy. The complainant never approached to the OP No.2.

10.              There is no dispute that the complainant purchased the mobile in question on 11.11.2018, from OP No.1, vide bill Ex.C1. It is well settled principle of law, the complainant is duty bound to prove his/her case by standing on his/her own legs and he/she is not suppose to peep into the defence or weakness of respondent. In the case in hand, complainant alleged, mobile phone was having manufacturing defect from the very beginning and in this regard, he approached to OP No.3, who refused to rectify the fault as well as to issue the job and demanded Rs.3,000/- for its repair, while the phone was became defective within warranty period, whereas, on the other hand, the OPs contended that the complainant never approached to them with regard to alleged defect in the mobile in question. It is pertinent to mention here that mere allegations of negligence cannot take place of proof, and complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove as and when he approached to the OP No.3 or any of OPs regarding alleged defect in mobile phone. Moreover, this contention of complainant that OP No.3 illegally demanded Rs.3000/- for repair of mobile in question during the warranty period of one year, was also not believable due to non-production of any documentary in this regard. Complainant further alleged that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile in question from the very beginning, but he failed to produce any expert report/engineer report in this regard. So, in this way, considering the totality of the allegations of the complainant and material brought on the record, by the complainant himself, there is not an iota of cogent and convincing evidence, on the record, to substantiate the allegations of the complainant made into the complaint. The complainant has miserably been failed to prove any deficiency in service by either of the OPs. Complaint is devoid on merits and is liable to be dismissed.

11.              Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, complaint is, dismissed, it being devoid on merits, leaving the complainant to bear his own costs of litigations. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:27.04.2022.

    

 

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.