Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 117.

                                                          Instituted on     : 17.12.2017.

                                                          Decided on       : 26.10.2018.

Sanjay s/o Sh. Kashmiri Lal r/o 591/19 Green Road, Rohtak.

                                                                    ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. SCO 35 Sector 31 Gurgaon through its M.D.
2. S.G. Communication Gopal Complex, Civil Road Rothak through its Prop.
3. B2X Service Solution India Pvt. Ltd. HUDA Complex Rohtak through its Incharge.

……….Opposite parties.

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

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Sanjeev Batra, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Kunal Juneja, Advocate for OP No.1 & 3.

                   Opposite party No.2 exparte.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased  a mobile phone of Samsung Model J5 vide bill no.5383 dated 10.02.2016 for Rs.12500/- from the respondent no.2 who is authorized agent of respondent no.1, with one year guarantee. That soon after its purchase, it was found that there was some manufacturing defect in the said mobile and there was problem in network and mobile used to give heat and there was also problem of hanging and auto switch off.   That the complainant deposited his mobile set with the service centre 3 times and after some repair the said set was handed over but defects could not be removed and the same was returned to the complainant on 18.01.2017.  That the opposite parties have supplied a mobile set having manufacturing defect in it. That despite his repeated requests, neither the mobile was replaced nor the amount was refunded. 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 pay the value of mobile set i.e. Rs.12500/- alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 & 3 in its reply has submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the unit in question and the complainant has made false allegation. That the complainant for the first and last time reported an issue on 18.01.2017 and services has been provided to the complainant and after that complainant never visited to answering opposite parties and without any proof leveled false allegation that the alleged unit has manufacturing defect.  That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.  However opposite parties No.2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.08.2017 of this Forum.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for the OP No.1 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence.

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

5.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties we have observed that the complainant had purchased the handset on 10.02.2016 and as per copy of job sheet Ex.C2 dated 18.01.2017, the complainant had contacted the opposite parties for repair of his mobile for the very first time and only the software was updated by the service centre. Thereafter complainant had not approached the opposite parties and no job sheet has been placed on record by the complainant. Merely updating of software after 11 months of purchase does not prove any defect in the mobile set and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Accordingly present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

6.                         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:

26.10.2018.

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

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

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

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.

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

                                                                        Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.