Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/328/2020

Kapil Mehta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mobile Solution - Opp.Party(s)

Parshant Sharma

01 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION; FATEHABAD.

 

C.C.No.328/2020.

Date of Instt.: 10.12.2020.

Date of Decision: 01.12.2023

Kapil Mehta son of Manohar Lal resident of Shop No.3, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad,Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

..Complainant

     Versus

 

1.Mobile Solution Samsung Service Centre, Near Guru Nanak Kitab Ghar, Char Marla Colony, Fatehabad through its prop.

2.Samsung India Electronics Ltd, 2^nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square Sector-43, Gold Course Road, Gurugram (Haryana) through its Director.

 

..Opposite Parties.

Before:        Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

                   Smt.Harisha Mehta, Member.

                   Dr.K.S.Nirania, Member.        

         

Present:       Sh.Parshant Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.Yogesh Gupta, counsel for OP No.2

                   OP No.1 ex-parte VOD 03.09.2021.

                   

ORDER

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President   

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that on 16.01.2020, the  complainant purchased a Samsung mobile Galaxy Note 10 Plus from Ajanta Enterprises for an amount of Rs.75,000/- vide invoice No.SC1499; that the mobile in question was having one year warranty; that the mobile worked properly for some days but thereafter it started creating problems such as battery performance besides network antenna problem; that due to this the complainant visited the Ops where his set was repaired; that after 4-5 months the handset again started giving network problem resulting into disconnection of calls on many occasions; that the complainant visited the Op No.1 where Job sheet No.4314493135 dt.17.11.2020 was issued but the engineer of Op No.1 did not repair the handset properly because the mobile in question kept on giving same problems time and again; that due to repeated same problems in the handset, the complainant had to visit the service centre again and again but the Ops failed to redress his grievance. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. In evidence,the complainant has furnished affidavit and documents Ex.CW1/A, Annexure C1 and C2.

2.                          On notice only Op No.2 appeared and filed its reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action and concealment of material facts from this Commission etc. have been taken. It has been further submitted that the product was duly checked by the engineer of the company and no defect was found therein; that the product was purchased on 16.01.2020 and the complainant lodged his complaint on 17.11.2020 after passing of more than 10 months without any problem; that the product was checked without any cost; that the fact regarding working of handset properly was brought in the knowledge of the complainant but despite that he remained adamant for the replacement of the mobile; that  as per the policy of the company there remains one year warranty on unit which means that in case of any problem with the unit the same would be repaired or its part would be replaced and the warranty means only repair not replacement and on some conditions such as Liquid logged, physically damaged, serial number missing, tampering and mishandling the warranty would be void; that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the replying OP.  Lastly, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. OP No.1 did not appear before this Commission despite service; therefore, it was proceeded against exparte VOD 03.09.2021. In evidence, the Op No.2 has filed affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure R1 and Annexure R2.

3.                 Counsel for parties were heard at length.

4.                It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased the handset from Ajanta Enterprises on 16.01.2020 vide Annexure C1.The complainant has come with the plea that he had visited the Ops number of times as the handset started creating problems within a period of warranty of one year but instead of redressing his grievance, the Ops did not provide the after sale service and further refused either to refund the cost there of or to replace the handset despite the fact that same problem of network issue occurred in the handset number of times. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the complainant has drawn the attention of this Commission towards job Annexure C2.

5.                Per contra learned counsel for the appearing OP No.2 argued that the handset set was taken to the customer care for the first time after passing of more than 10 months and on checking the handset, no defect was found in the hand set by the engineer and this fact is clearly mentioned in the Job Sheet Annexure R2 which is duly signed by the complainant.

 6.               It is not the case of the complainant that the job sheet issued by the service centre is a procured document and his signatures were obtained   by using coercive method.  Even all the proceedings, the complainant has never denied his signature on this document Annexure R2 wherein he has clearly mentioned that I/We have read and understood all the above terms and conditions, and accept the same. In the present complaint the complainant has come with bare allegations only without leading any substantive evidence and it is settled law that the complainant has to stand on his own legs to prove his case without taking any benefits from the weaknesses of the other party by leading concrete and authentic evidence but in the present case the complainant has not done so, therefore, the present case deserves dismissal.

7.                          Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice, on part of the Ops, so as to make any of them liable in this matter to any extent. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.  In the given circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of this Commission, for perusal of parties herein. Case file be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 01.12.2023

 

 

                                                                                               

      (K.S.Nirania)                     (Harisha Mehta)           (Rajbir Singh)                             Member                                  Member                                President