Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 481
Instituted on : 19.08.2021
Decided on : 07.12.2023
Ram Niwas s/o Sh. Ramphal R/o Village chamaria, Tehsil and District Rohtak.
.......................Complainant
- Jagdamba Communication 136/21, GohanaAdda, Rohtak(Haryana).
- Samsung Mobile Company(Service Center HUDA Complex, Rohtak).
- Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. Registered office 6th floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi through its M.D.
..........................Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.AnilHooda, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. KunalJuneja Advocate for opposite party No.3.
Opposite party No.1 & 2 already exparte.
ORDER
TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had purchased Samsung Mobile SAM M02 from the opposite party no.1 on dated 13.07.2021 for Rs.8200/-. That soon after purchase, it was found that the said mobile was not properly working and there was problem of high heating. The complainant went to the opposite party no.1 who advised the complainant to contact with the customer care. Thereafter complainant contacted with the customer care but no help was given to the complainant. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that complaint of the complainant may kindly be resolved.
2. After registration of complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties.Notice issued to opposite party no. 1 &2 through registered post on 11.11.2021 not received back either served or unserved. As such, after expiry of statutory period of one month, opposite party no.1 &2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.01.2022 of this Commission. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that as per limited details mentioned in the complaint, no complaint no., serial no. of unit or valid contact no. has been provided by the complainant and for the reason, no details found in the online system of the company which means that complainant has never registered any complaint with any of the service center of the answering opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence on dated 07.10.2022. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex. R1 and closed his evidence on dated 09.06.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case it is not disputed that complainant had purchased a mobile phone of opposite party company for a sum of Rs.8200/- on 13.07.2021 as is proved from the bill Ex.C1. The grievance of the complainant is that the alleged mobile phone was defective from the very beginning and there was problem of high heating in the alleged mobile phone. The complainant contacted the service centre of opposite party for the alleged defect on the very next day of its purchase but the officials of service centre did not solve the problems. On the other hand, contention of the opposite party No.3 is that no complaint was ever registered in the online system of the company which means that complainant has never registered any complaint with any of the service center of the company.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, officials of the service centre did not resolve the problem of the mobile phone of the complainant. As per the complainant, the service centre did not help the complainant in any manner, so the question of providing the job sheet by the service centre does not arise. On the other hand it is also on record that opposite party No.1 & 2 have not appeared before this Commission and were proceeded exparte, which shows that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding not resolving the grievances of the complainant stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party No.3 being the manufacturer is liable to compensate the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.3 to pay the amount of Rs.8200/-(Rupees eight thousand and two hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a.from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.08.2021 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
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:
07.12.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender SinghKadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
