Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 567.
Instituted on : 06.11.2019
Decided on : 23.02.2024
Bindu age 26 years, w/o Sh. Goldy Sachdeva r/o 120/6 Partap Nagar Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. SCO 35, Sector 31, Gurugram through its M.D.
- The B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Jain Mansion HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001, through its Prop.
…….Respondents/Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Madhur Arora, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that she had purchased a Samsung Galaxy S8 64 GB mobile vide bill no.3263 dated 14.10.2018 for Rs.47000/- from the authorized agent of opposite party no.1 with one year guarantee. Soon after purchase, it was found that there was some manufacturing defect in the said mobile and there was problem in screen and hanging. The complainant was asked to take the said mobile to service centre i.e. opposite party No.2 and accordingly the complainant took the said set to opposite party No.2 on 01.10.2019 and screen was changed but even then the screen was not properly functioning. Opposite parties have supplied a defective mobile set to the complainant having manufacturing defect. Complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the price of mobile set but to no effect. As such there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.47000/- alongwith interest and also to pay Rs.20000/- on account of deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to opposite party no.2 through Process-server of this Commission received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 and as such opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.01.2020 of this Commission. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant purchased the unit on 14.10.2018 and after using the unit for a period of approximate one year, suddenly complainant started making allegations that the unit has some manufacturing defect. The complainant in regard to his complaint, approached the service center on 01.10.2019 vide job sheet no.4291556713 and reported incoming voice problem and low battery problem in her unit. The engineer of the service centre duly received the unit and checked and found that the LCD & battery needs replacement. The complainant agreed and the LCD & BATTERY of unit was replaced and the complainant took the delivery of her unit being fully satisfied. After that, no problem has been reported by the complainant in this regard to her unit. There is no manufacturing defect in the unit and the services have been provided to the complainant. There is no deficiency in services on the part of opposite party No.1. As such opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant failed to adduce any evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities. As such evidence of complainant was closed by the order dated 06.09.2022 of this Commission. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on 17.01.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. In the present case complainant had purchased the mobile phone on 14.10.2018. As per the complainant she approached the service centre of opposite party on 01.10.2019 vide job sheet no.4291556713 and reported ‘incoming voice problem and low battery problem’ in the unit. The engineer of the service centre checked the unit and found that LCD and battery of unit needs replacement. Thereafter LCD and battery of the unit has been replaced and mobile was handed over to the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant has submitted that she is facing problem in the screen and hanging and submitted that she approached to respondent no.2 on 01.10.2019 and respondent no.2 changed the screen but after that the screen of the mobile was not properly functioning and job sheet has been prepared on that date. The complainant has not placed on record any evidence. Still we have perused the documents attached with the complaint i.e. a bill and job sheet dated 01.10.2019 which has been exhibited by the respondent as Ex.R2. The perusal of this job sheet itself shows that the complainant was facing ‘incoming voice very low and battery back up’ problem but the complainant was not facing problem regarding the screen. So the unit was checked and repaired and handed over after replacement of LCD and battery. Thereafter no job sheet has been got prepared by the complainant. But she has not approached the opposite party after 01.10.2019. A contradictory stand has been taken by the complainant in complaint and job sheet. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. 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:
23.02.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
