IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 30th day of September, 2024
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 55/2024 (Filed on 14.02.2024)
Complainant | : | Johnson, Chakkalayil House, Malloossery.P.O., Kottayam 686 0041 |
Opposite parties | 1. | Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd., 6th floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 (By Adv. Manu J Varappally ) |
| 2. | Samsung Service Centre, 1st KMC-XIII/312,F7-8-9 Kottayam 686 001 (By Adv. Lithin Thomas)(OP1&2) |
| 3. | Nandilath G Mart, Karottukunnel Arcade, XIII/1130 A,B,C Opp Nehru Stadium, Nagambadom, Kottayam 686 001 (By Adv. K.A.Bijoy) |
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 opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared before the Commission and field separate version. Despite the receipt of notice from this Commission second opposite party did not care to appear before this Commission or to file version. Hence the second opposite party is declared as ex party.
The case of the complainant is that on 26.10.2023 he had purchased a galaxy A4 mobile phone which is manufactured by the first opposite party from the third opposite party by paying ₹ 19,999/- (Rupees nineteen thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only). The said mobile phone became defective on 06.02.2024 when he entrusted the phone to the second opposite party who is the authorised service centre of the manufacturer they refused to rectify the defects under warranty coverage. 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 17.07.2024. The notice was duly served to the Complainant on 06.07.2024. 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 30th day of September, 2024
Sri. Manulal V.S, President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant : NIL
Exhibits from the side of the Opposite Parties :NIL
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
