DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.174 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. Malik Communication, Samsung Mobile Service Centre, Shop No. 1, Ganpat Rai Maternity Home K Upar, Ghanta Ghar Chowk, Bhiwani through its Manager.
2. 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. 2.

                 OP no. 1 exparte.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

          In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 04.01.2015 he had purchased one hand set of Samsung Galaxy S-4 for a sum of Rs. 21,000/- from Sunny Crockery & Gift Shop. It is alleged that after some time it started giving trouble and he visited the service centre of the company on 25.03.2015 and the job card dated 25.03.2015 issued by the OP no. 1.  It is alleged that his mobile handset again went out of order.  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 present complaint is nothing but an outcome of mere sheer and greed of the mind of the complainant.  It is submitted that the complainant has also filed another consumer complaint titled as Suraj Chand Vs. Heena Communication which is also pending before this Hon’ble Forum for 14.10.2015 regarding another model Galaxy grand 2.  It is submitted that the complainant is habitual litigant and has filed the present complaint just to grab benefits illegal from the answering respondent.  It is submitted that the details of service job sheet as mentioned in the present complaint by the complainant are completely wrong and false.  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 Sunny Crockery & Gift Shop on 04.01.2015.  After some time it started giving trouble and he visited the service centre of the company on 25.03.2015 and the job card dated 25.03.2015 issued by the OP no. 1.  He submitted that his mobile handset again went out of order.

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. Heena 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 visited the service centre of OP no.  1 on 25.03.2015 his mobile handset was fully repaired and deliver it to in working condition.  Therefore, the allegation of the complainant is false and baseless.

8.                The complainant has filed the job sheet dated 25.03.2015.  The mobile handset in question is with the complainant.  The counsel for the OP contended that the complainant  has not brought any evidence on the file that the mobile handset is having any manufacturing defect.  He has further contended that the complainant has failed to prove that the mobile handset in question is defective.  Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to repair the mobile handset in question of the complainant, if it is brought by the complainant to the service centre of the company/OP no. 1 within 30 days from the date of passing of this order 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