Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/237/2019

Pardeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Kaushik

04 Feb 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.237 of 2019

Date of Instt.:10.06.2019

Date of Decision: 04.02.2021

 

Pardeep son of late Sh.Randhir Singh, resident of village Khanpur District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                              Versus

 

1. SamsungIndia Electronics Pvt.Ltd. B-1, Sector-81, Phase-II, Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P.

2.Samsung Care/Service Centre, Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.at Opposite Paras Cinema, Kurukshetra.

3.Lavish Communication, Shop No.G-15, Lala Lajpat Rai Complex, Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal (Haryana).

 

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

      Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                

                 

Present:     Shri Rajesh Kumar Kaushik Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.

OP No.2 and 3 ex-parte.

ORDER

                  

                 This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Pardeep against Samsung India Electronics etc, the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased a mobile set make Samsung J-6 from OP No.3 for a sum of Rs.12491/- vide invoice No.478 dated 7.6.2018.   It is averred that the s aid mobile set became defective within warranty period with the problem of hanging, show process, weak touch screen and weak battery back-up.  It is averred that the complainant took the said  mobile phone many times to the OP No.2 i.e. authorized service centre of OP No.1 but the OP No.2 refused to repair the mobile set of complainant and told the complainant that  the defect in the mobile set cannot be rectified rather he threw the mobile on the road and also refused to give the job sheet. Thus, such an act on the part of the OPs is deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and the complainant has been put to unforeseen situations like economical losses, physical and mental suffering besides loss of precious time. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services and prayed for refund of Rs.12491/- alongwith the compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to him together with litigation expenses.

 

3.             Upon service, OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is submitted that answering OP  has an online system to enter all claims/complaints vide IEMI/Sr.no. in each and every case but in the present complaint as per limited details mentioned in the complaint, no complaint no. serial no of unit or valid contact no. or even the date of visit to service center of answering OP has been provided by complainant and for the reason, no details found in the online system of the company, which means that the complainant has never approached to the answering OP, which means that there is no problem in the unit and present complaint has been filed  just to grab  benefits illegally from the answering OP. It is further submitted that the answering OP  provides one year warranty on the unit and also warranty means in case of any problem in the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per warranty policy and the warranty of the  unit  is subject to  some conditions and the warranty of the unit becomes void in case of i) liquid logged/water logging ii) physically damage iii) Serial no. Missing iv)Tampering v) Mishandling/Burnt etc.  It is thus, submitted that the answering OP was and is still ready to provide services to the complainant as per conditions of warranty, so there is no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.             Summons issued to OP No.2 and 3 were served but  the OP N.2 and 3 failed to appear and contest the present case. Therefore, OP No.2 and 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.07.2019.

 

5.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 and closed his evidence.

 

6.             On the other hand, OP No.1 filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered document Ex.R-1 and closed his evidence.

 

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the case file.

8.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the contents of the complaint has argued that the mobile purchased by him is defective one and having manufacturing defect and the OP no.1 refused to accept the mobile phone for  repairs and thus failed to rectify the defect and he is entitled to refund of the cost of the mobile phone alongwith compensation  for the mental harassment and agony faced by him and litigation expenses.

 

9.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has argued that  OP  No.1 has an online system to enter all claims/complaints vide IEMI/Sr.no. in each and every case but in the present complaint as per limited details mentioned in the complaint, no complaint no. serial no of unit or valid contact no. or even the date of visit to service center of OP No.1 has been provided by complainant and for the reason, no details found in the online system of the company, which means that the complainant has never approached to the  OP No.1, which means that there is no problem in the unit and present complaint has been filed  just to grab  benefits illegally from the answering OP No.1.

 

10.            After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case file, we are of the view that the present complaint is without any force. There is no record of  complaint number or date of the complaint on which the complainant allegedly made any complaint or visited to service centre of OP No.1.  No documentary evidence has been placed on the file to substantiate the allegations made by the complainant in the present complaint. The complainant has also filed an stereo type affidavit and the said affidavit of the complainant is also not attested by any authority. In such circumstances, allegations made by the complainant in the present complaint cannot be believed at all and as such the present complaint  deserves to be dismissed.

 

11.            For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission.

Dt.:04.02.2021                                                    (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                             President.

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

                  Member                             Member