IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 28th day of December, 2023
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 152/2023 (Filed on 22/05/2023)
Complainant : Christine Johney,
Chadanakuzhiyil House,
Kuravilangadu P.O,
Kottayam – 686 633.
Vs.
Opposite parties :(1) Samsung India Electronics (P) Limited,
Represented by Managing Director,
6th Floor, DLF Centre,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001.
(By Adv: Manu.J. Varappally)
(2) The Proprietor,
Fast Track Digital Hub,
IV 360, 361,
Vattom Kuzhithadathil Building,
Kozha, Kuravilangadu,
Kottayam – 686 633.
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 parties.
Upon receipt of notice from this Commission opposite parties did not appear before the Commission and not filed version.
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile phone which is manufactured by the first opposite party from the second opposite party by availing financial assistance of Rs.19,000/- from Samsung Finance. According to the complainant from the initial date of purchase the mobile phone started to show several defects. When this was intimated to the second opposite party he assured that the defective phone should be replaced with a new mobile phone having the same specification. Thereafter the second opposite party replaced the defective phone with a new one. But when the complainant started to use the said mobile phone it was noticed that there are several defects like overheating, the torch is not working etc. When the complainant informed this to the second opposite party he was reluctant either to replace or to repair the mobile phone. Hence alleging deficiency in service 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 18-12-2023.The notice was returned as refused. 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 December, 2023
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
