Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 78.,

                                                          Instituted on     : 27.01.2016.

                                                          Decided on       : 03.07.2017.

Sanjeev s/o Mulakh Raj R/o H.No.565/19, Green Road, Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. S.G. Communication, Gopal Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
2. Balaji Communication, SCF 187-188 New HUDA Complex, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
3. Samsung Mobile Phones, Head Office Sector-31, Gurgaon through its Diretor.

                                                ……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Hawa Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite party No.1 & 2 exparte.

                   Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.3.

                                      ORDER

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a Mobile phone bearing IMEI No.359710054549366 from the opposite party No.1. for a sum of Rs.13700/- vide bill No.29869 dated 25.02.2014. It is averred that just after few months of purchase of mobile it started creating problem and the said mobile is not working properly and the same was having hanging problem in its software. It is averred that complainant approached the opposite party no.2 and requested to replace the said mobile phone. The official of opposite party no.2 kept the mobile phone and returned the same after repair but not issued any job card. But just after few days it again started hanging and complainant again approached the opposite party no.2 upto 4-5 times but till date the mobile phone has not been rectified by the opposite parties. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                          Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party no.1 & 2 received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1 & 2 and as such opposite party no.2 vide order dated 02.03.2016 and opposite party no.1 vide order dated 20.10.2016 were proceeded against exparte. Opposite party no.3 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the complainant never approached to the answering opposite parties. It is averred that complainant has not affixed any complaint number, any job sheet, any e-mail etc. As per the details mentioned in the complaint, no call of the complainant found in the online system of the answering opposite party which means that complainant never reported any issue to the answering opposite party and also the complainant has not affixed any complaint number or any job sheet with the present complaint. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                          Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1  and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and has closed his evidence.

5.                          We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per receipt Ex.C1 dated 25.02.2014 the complainant had purchased the mobile set for a sum of Rs.13700/- from the opposite party no.1. The contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that the handset in question was defective and after few months of purchase it started creating problems but the same could not be repaired by the opposite parties despite his repeated requests. But to prove his contention ld. Counsel for the complainant has not placed on record any document or even the date of defect in the alleged handset or any complaint number has not been mentioned in the complaint. However opposite party no.3 as per its affidavit has submitted that opposite party is ready to remove the defect of the mobile set in question.

7.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that complainant shall hand over the mobile set in question to the opposite parties and in turn the opposite party No.3 shall remove the inherent defects of the mobile in question and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

8.                          Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

03.07.2017.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                          ……………………………..

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member

                                                          …………………………….

                                                          Ved Pal, Member.