O R D E R

Sri. George Baby (President):

This complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the opposite parties for getting reliefs from them.

2. The Complainant’s case in brief as follows:-  That the complainant has purchased a Samsung mobile handset SMG 950FZDD from the first opposite party on 31/03/2018 and its price was Rs.53,000/-.  The complainant averred that no proper signals were received through the handset and he could not use the mobile in proper manner and handed over the mobile to the opposite parties three and four for servicing respectively on 09/06/2018, 20/06/2018, 23/06/2018 and 30/06/2018 and received back the set on 07/07/2018.  But still the mobile set is faulty and hence he seeks the refund of the price of the mobile set along with other reliefs.
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties.  The second opposite party only appeared before this Forum and others decaled exparte.
4. The second opposite party filed their version and their main contentions are as follows:-  That the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complainant has no valid cause of action against the opposite parties.  That the complainant’s mobile phone has no manufacturing defects.  The complainant has alleged network issue but no such issue was found in the set and the complainant was faced such only issue at the complainant’s location and not in any other locations.  The complainant has approached the service centre on many occasions and all those time they provided better service to him and hence no deficiency in service was committed.  The opposite party informed the complainant that the defects in the mobile handset if any had occurred due to net work issues only at his location and not otherwise.  Hence they pray for the dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
5. That we peruse the complaint, version and the records before us and we framed the following issues for adjudication:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved his case?
2. Regarding the reliefs and cost?

6. In order to prove the case of the complainant the complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined him as PW1.  Through PW1 Exhibit A1 to A6 were marked.  Exhibit A1 is the Tax invoice dated:31/03/2018, Exhibit A2 is the acknowledgement of service request dated:09/06/2018.  Exhibit A3 is Acknowledgment of Service Request dated: 20/06/2018.  Exhibit A4 is the acknowledgement of service request dated: 23/06/2018. Exhibit A5 is the acknowledgement of service request dated:30/06/2018 and Ext. A6 is the acknowledgment of service request dated:30/06/2018.  After the completion of the evidence we heard the complainant and the second opposite party.
7. Point No.1:-The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a Sumsung mobile handset model No.SMG 950FZDD on payment of Rs. 53,900/-.  The handset was purchased on 31/03/2018 and the set has not received the signal properly and he could not use it well.  The complainant had entrusted the mobile set to the service centers for repairing, the said defects on 09/06/2018, 20/06/2018, 23/06/2018 and 30/06/2018.  He had received back the set on 07/07/2018 after the last service.  But still the mobile handset is faulty.  The second opposite party’s contentions is in short is that complainant’s hand set is not having any inherent or manufacturing defect only alleged problem is the net issues but no such issue were found in the set and the complainant was facing such issue only at the complainant’s location and not in any other locations.  The second opposite party’s specific contention is thatthe complainant’s mobile hand set has no manufacturing defect or any other defects as alleged.  The complainant has not taken any steps to prove that the set has bad with manufacturing defect or any other defect even though he has deposed at the time of cross examination in that effect.  It is settled position of consumer law that the manufacturing defects should be proved with cogent evidence.  In this case the complainant has failed to prove the manufacturing or any other defects of the hand set with any evidence or expert opinion.  In the said circumstances we found Point No.1 is against the complainant.
8. Point No.2:- In the light of the above this issue also is found against the complainant.

                    In the result the complaint is dismissed and no order of cost.         

         Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of November, 2019. (   

(Sd/-)

Sri. George Baby

                                                                                                (President) :

Smt. ShajithaBeevi.N  (Member)    : (Sd/-)

Sri.NishadThankappan(Merber II): (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1:Geo Zachariah

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1:  Tax invoice dated:31/03/2018

A2:  Acknowledgement of service request dated:09/06/2018

A3:  Acknowledgment of Service Request dated: 20/06/2018.

A4: Acknowledgement of service request dated: 23/06/2018. 

A5: Acknowledgement of service dated:30/06/2018.

A6: Acknowledgment of service request dated:30/06/2018.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

Copy to:- (1) Geo Zachariah,

Vellattethuveedu, Vayalathala PO,

Ranny, Pathanamthitta - 689672                              

2. Mr. Manoj (Manager),

Samsung Smart Café),

Group Lavender, Pullimoottil Arcade, K.K. Road,

Kanjikuzhi, Kottayam – 686004

3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

27/224, B&C Mithun Towers, KP Vallon Road,

Kadavanthra – 682020.

4. The Manager,

Sumsung Electronic Services,

TVS Electronics Ltd.,KMC-XII/312,1^st Floor, Room No. 7,8,9,

Star Junction, Kottayam – 686001.

5. Online Services,

SNDP building, Nearcollectorate,

Pathanamthitta – 689645.

6. The Stock File.