Haryana

Ambala

CC/383/2021

Pankaj Gera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Savex Technologies Pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

01 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	383 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	14.12.2021
Date of decision	:	01.12.2022

Aarav Gera s/o  Pankaj Gera, through his father Pankaj being G P A PANKAJ GERA son of Sh. Amarnath Gera, aged about 44 years, resident of House No:103, Ward No : 11, Near UCO Bank, Naraingarh, District Ambala-Haryana-134203.

…..Complainant

Versus

 

1. SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE Limited, Plot No:128, Jhotwara Industrial Area, Jaipur-Rajasthan-302016. through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. SAMSUNG Service Centre, Near Police Station (Jindal Agency) Naraingarh, District Ambala-Haryana-134203, through Its Prop. Manager/Authorized person/signatory.
3. SAMSUNG India Electronics Limited, Head Office, 20^th  to 24^th  Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase 5, Sector 43, Gurugram, Haryana-122202.

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       None for the complainant.

                     OPs No.1 and 2 already ex parte.

                    Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.3.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

(i) To refund the amount of Rs.12,499/-, to the complainant as the Mobile Phone become non-functional.

(ii) To pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

(iii) To pay Rs.10,000/-, as litigation charges

OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant was in need of a Mobile phone for self and for the study purpose of his minor son namely Aarav Gera aged about 10/11 years only. Seeing the good reputation of the Samsung Company, the complainant purchased the Mobile Phone of Samsung company M-21 on 18-10-2020 through On-Line-Amazon on making payment of Rs.12,499/-.  From the very beginning of purchase of the said Mobile Phone, its functioning was very slow and there was hanging problem therein. However, on 06.09.2021, when the said phone was still under warranty period, it stopped working and on 07-09-2021, the complainant reported the matter to the OP No.2. The mobile handset was deposited with repair/service centre, which was kept by it for ten days, yet, the same could not be repaired and when it was returned, it was found totally damaged. It was assured by the OPs that motherboard of the said mobile handset will be replaced but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to the Customer Care of the OPs through Mobile Phone (from another Mobile Phone), but to no avail. When his grievance was not redressed, the complainant reported the matter to P.M.O (Prime Minister Office), New Delhi through letter dated 25-09-2021, which was registered vide No: DARPG/E/2021/32856 dated 15-10-2021. However, the OPs gave false report to the PMO Office, which resulted into closure of his complaint. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs No.1 and 2, before this Commission, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.02.2022.
4.           Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts and no locus standi etc.  On merits, it has been stated that the complainant has failed to place on record any evidence to prove that the mobile phone in question suffers from any defect. OP No.3 has a system of providing services to it's customers through it's service centers. If a customer comes for any issue or any services, a token is issued and the customer is to wait for it's turn to be attended by the customer care person. After the customer care person calls the particular token number and after the entry level screening, the unit is deposited with the service center for repair/service. But in the present case, the complainant only got an appointment for visit and after that, did not deposit his unit for checking. Had the complainant deposited the unit for the alleged issue, the service center person would have definitely issued a job sheet for the same, but in the present case, the complainant very cleverly only collected the token slip just to create an evidence alleged to be failure in providing services to the complainant. The complainant has also not registered any complaint to the service center of OP No.3. The company provides one year warranty on the unit and in case any defect is found therein, it is bound to replace the defective part, subject to terms and conditions of the warranty. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
5.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence.  Learned counsel for the OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Shri Sandeep Sahijwani, C/o Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 6^th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 as  Annexure OP-3/A alongwith document Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for OP No.3 and carefully gone through the case file.
7.           The moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, the complainant  is entitled to get refund of the price of the mobile in question or not? It may be stated here that in the complaint, complainant has stated that the mobile set in question stopped working and  he approached the service centre of the OPs number of times for rectification of the defects in the said mobile phone, but they failed to rectify the same. The learned counsel for the OP No.3 submitted that the complainant has failed to prove that the mobile in question suffers from any defect and he handed over the same to the service centre for its repair. It may be stated here that in order to prove that the complainant handed over his mobile set to the service centre of the OPs, he has placed on record visiting slip dated 07.09.2021, Annexure C-7 issued by service centre of the OPs, but not any job sheet with regard to the handing over the mobile set in question to the service centre.  Mere placing on record the visiting slip dated 07.09.2021, issued by service centre of the OPs, in no way goes to show that the mobile handset was handed over to the OPs for rectification of the alleged defect. Our this view is supported by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in Ram Singh Vs. Kunal TVS Auto Centre, RP No.1808 of 2017, decided on 13.7.2017, wherein it was held that mere placing on record token/slip used to be given by the service centre is not acceptable, unless, it is proved by way of placing job cards that the unit/goods were actually handed over to the service centre. In our considered view, the complainant was required to place on record the copy of job card(s), to prove that he reported about the alleged defects and handed over the mobile set in question for its repairs, to the service centre,   but he failed to do so.  As such, in the absence of any evidence to prove that the mobile handset in question is suffering from any defect, which is beyond repairs and it was ever handed over to the service centre of the OPs, for the alleged repairs, the prayer made by the complainant seeking refund of the amount paid towards the said mobile phone cannot be considered.

10.               In this view of the matter, it is held that since the complainant has failed to prove his case, as such, no relief can be granted to him in that regard. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be annexed and consigned to the record room.            

Announced on: 01.12.2022.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President