Haryana

Panchkula

CC/70/2015

SATISH KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTROINCS PVT .LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ARIHANT GOYAL.

20 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	70 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	13.04.2015
Date of Decision	:	20.08.2015

Satish Kumar s/o Janakraj, R/o New Grain Market, Shop No.78, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

 ….Complainant

Versus

1.         M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., SCO 35, HUDA, Main Market, Sector-31, Gurgaon (Haryana).

2.         M/s Bansal Electronics, SCO 2, Sector-11, Panchkula (Haryana).

3.         Samsung Authorised Service Care Centre, Behind Karwasra, Lalaji-Balaji Market, Hanumangarh Junction, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

                                                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:           Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

      Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

      Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

Present: Mr.Arihant Goyal, Adv., for the complainant.

                        Mr.Sandeep Suri, Adv., for the Ops No.1 & 3.

                        Op No.2 already ex-parte.

 

                       

Today the case was fixed for arguments. At this stage, the counsel for the Ops No.1 & 3 has made a separate statement in which he states that the company is ready to replace the TV set in question with another TV set of the same modle or a model of similar specification in case the same model is not available. Counsel for the complainant has also made a separate statement in which he states that as the Ops are ready to replace the LED Panel of the same or similar model in case the same is not available and of the same specification. So, he accepts the statement made by the counsel for the Ops No.1 and 3. As he had verble communication with the counsel for the Ops No.1 & 3 and counsel for the Ops No.1 & 3 has agreed to replace the abvoesaid unit from the native place of the complainant i.e. Hanumangarh (Rajasthan). So, hereby he withdraws the present complaint.

Heard. In view of the statement, the present complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn being compromised. We order accordingly.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

Dt.20.08.2015                (S.P.Attri)                     (Anita Kapoor)        (Dharam Pal)

                                    Member                         Member                              President