BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of July 2018
Filed on : 31-07-2018
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.158/2016
Between
Prasanth Joy, : Complainant
S/o. Joy,Apple Residency, (By Adv. Biju Joseph, 2nd Floor,
Airport Road, Nedumbasserey, Kalalrikkal Building, OKM Road,
Ernakulam-683 585. Ernakulam, Kochi-18)
And
1. The Samsung India Electronic : Opposite parties
Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing (1st O.P. By Adv. K.S. Arundas,
Director, A-25, Ground Floor, KHCAA Chamber No. 450, Near
Front Tower, Mohan Co-Oprative High Court of Kerala,Ernakulam,
Industrial Estate, Kochi-31)
New Delhi-110 044.
2. The Manager, Alif Mobile,
Alif Communication,
Penta Menaka, Shop No. B1,
Shanmugam Road,
Ernakulam-682 331.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Complainant's case
The complainant purchased a Samsung tab 10” on 10-09-2014n for an amount of Rs. 44,000/-. Thereafter the tab started showing defects and it has display problems. The complainant had taken the tab to the authorized service centre. However, the service centre did not provide adequate service and the repair works was not proper. The fact was reported to the service centre on 07-08-2015 and the defects are still subsisting. The complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- and costs of Rs. 5,000/- for the deficient service.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party appeared and submitted a version contending that the Tab was not purchased by the complainant and it was repaired by the authorized service centre on 19-06-2015 and the LED display was replaced free of cost and returned to the complainant in good condition which was acknowledged by the complainant. According to the opposite party there was no deficiency in service.
3. When the matter came up for evidence in list, the complainant did not appear to give oral evidence. Exbts. A1 to A3 documents were marked on the side of the complainant. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence.
4. Today when the matter came up for hearing also the complainant did not appear to pursue the matter. We have gone through Exbts. A1 to A3 documents produced and marked in this case.
5. Following issues were settled for consideration.
i. Whether the complainant had proved that there was any
deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
ii. Reliefs and costs
6. The available evidence in this case with regard to the allegations in the complaint are Exbts/ A1 to A3 documents. Exbts. A1 is the customer information slip filed by the complainant and produced before this Forum dated 04-08-2015. It does not show that the opposite parties had accepted the device for repair. Exbt. A2 is the purchase invoice issued in the name of one Mr. P.J. Amballur whereas the complainant is one Mr. Prasanth Joy . There is no materials to shows that P.J. Amballur and Prasanth Joy is one and the same person. Exbt. A3 is the warranty card, which is also not filled showing the date of purchase and the identifying number of the device.
7. In the above circumstance, we find that no consumer dispute is reflected through the materials produced by the complainant. Issue is found against the complainant.
8. Issue No. ii. Having found issue No. i. against the complainant, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2018
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sheen Jose, Member.
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Customer Information slip
A2 : Copy of bill dt. 10-09-2014
A3 : Copy of brochure
Opposite party's exhibits: : Nil
