IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 28th day of June, 2024
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 228/2023 (Filed on 24/07/2023)
Complainant | : | Abhijith Sabu, Revathy Neendoor P.O Kottayam – 686 601 (By Adv. ) |
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) QRS Retail Ltd.
SHI YWCA Near
Baker Junction
Baker Hill
Kottayam – 686 001
(By Adv. Elvis J. Alex)
(2) Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd
CIN:U31900d11995PTCO71387
6th Floor, DLF Centre
Sansad Mard
New Delhi 110 001
(By Adv. Manu J. Varappally)
(3) Samsung Service Centre
1st KMC/13/312, Adam Towers
Star Junction FT/8/9
Kottayam – 686 001
(4) Bajaj Finserv Service
1st Floor, Varathrapallathu Building
T.B.Road, Near KSRTC Bus Stand
Kottayam - 686 001
(By Adv. Jaison Paliyil )
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
This complaint was filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party. Upon receipt of notice from this commission second opposite party appeared before the commission and field version.
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased Samsung Galaxy S23 Green Color mobile phone on 31-3-2023 for an amount of Rs.77,249/- by availing finance assistance from the fourth opposite party. However the said mobile phone was not working properly. Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievance. The complainant has not filed any affidavit or documents. It is found that though the complainant has raised allegations against the opposite parties, he has not adduced any evidence by way of affidavit or documents to substantiate his case against the opposite parties, despite giving sufficient opportunities. As the complainant was continuously absent, notice was issued from this Commission to the complainant to appear before this Commission on 26-2-2024 and 28-5-2024.The notice was duly served to the Complainant on 13-2-2024 and 13-5-2024 respectively. As the complainant has not filed an affidavit or documents to substantiate his allegations, we find that the complainant miserably failed to establish his case against the opposite parties. In the above circumstances, we find that this is a fit case to be dismissed.
In the result the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of June, 2024
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
By Order,
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
