Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 391.
Instituted on : 10.07.2017.
Decided on : 16.01.2019.
Pankaj Kumar son of Sh. Madan Lal, R/o 18, Subhash Road, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1 Samsung India Pvt. Ltd., through its Manager Advance Technology, 213/37, 1st Floor, Above easydays Retail Store, Main Jhasra Road, Kirti Nagar, Near Sector-35, Gurgaon.
2 Samsung Care, (Authorized Service Center) B2X service solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Near-Old Zim Khana Club, HUDA Complex, Rohtak.
3 Prince Enterprises, Old Gohana Stand, Opp- Mandeep Studio, Rohtak.
……….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. M.K. Vaid, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for OPs No. 1 and 2.
OP No. 3 already exparte v.o.d. 24.08.2017.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that complainant had purchased a Samsung Android mobile on 04.11.2016, model No. J2 2016 bearing IMEI No. 352602089154873 from the OP No. 3 which was manufactured by OP No. 1. The OP No. 1 gave one year warranty for the said mobile phone and the same is provided through the authorized service center i.e. OP No. 2. It is alleged that after four days of purchasing the said mobile phone, the same started creating problem and battery of the said phone also heated and auto empty show. The complainant contacted OP No. 2 regarding this problem on 09.11.2016, and then OP No. 2 updated the software but after doing the same, display/screen of the said phone not working properly. On 20.12.2016, display of the said phone stopped working completely. The complainant again reported the matter to the OP No. 2, but they refused to entertain the complaint. That the act of opposite parties of selling a defective mobile is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties No. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to replace the said mobile phone with new one, with extended warranty or refund the cost of said phone i.e. Rs. 10,100/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of payment to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 75,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. has a system to lodge online complaint with the system of answering respondent for each and every IMEI/Sr. No. but in this complaint, as per limited details provided, no complaint has been found registered with the OPs. It is further submitted that company provides one year warranty on the unit, warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per policy of the company. Lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OPs.
3. Whereas, OP No. 3 has failed to appear before the court, so, OP No. 3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.08.2017.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence on dated 22.03.2018. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and has closed his evidence on dated 07.08.2018.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. After going through the file and hearing both the parties, it is observed that complainant had purchased the mobile on 04.11.2016. Thereafter, he contacted the OPs on dated 09.11.2016 and only software was upgraded by the service centre. Thereafter, complainant never approached the OPs and no job sheet has been placed on record by the complainant. As per the reply filed by OPs also, there is no complaint found registered with the OPs in their online system. As such, complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the present complaint has been dismissed with no order as to cost.
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:
16.01.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
