DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF MAY, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date Of Filing: 15.09.2023.
CC/235/2023
Vijay.M.P, S/o.Velayudhan, - Complainant
Mangalamkunnu,
Cheruparambil House,
Paruthur Post,
Pattambi, Palakkad District.
(By Adv.Gangadharan B)
Vs
1. M/s.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, -Opposite Parties
6th Floor, DFF Centre,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110 001.
(By Adv.Joseph Devassy)
2. The proprietor,
Uphone, KHILAR, 3/1170,
Koppam, Pattambi.
(Ex-parte)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant.
The complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the 1st opposite party, from the 2nd opposite party dealer on 15.04.2023 for Rs.18,446/-. The allegation of the complainant is that the said phone is having manufacturing defect such as severe heating, defective flash etc. When this issue was brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party, it was informed that once the software is updated the phone will be working properly.
The mobile phone even after doing the necessary software updation by the 2nd opposite party and replacing the main board by the 1st opposite party, developed the same defects. Hence, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for replacement of the phone or refund of the original cost. As the 2nd opposite party did not respond positively the complainant issued a lawyer notice on 09.06.2023 to the opposite parties, but there was no response from them. According to the complainant, this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence, approached this Commission seeking replacement of the phone or refund of the original cost (Rs.18,446/-) along with interest @12% p.a along with a compensation of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as cost.
2. The complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice to the 2nd opposite party got returned with endorsement “not known”. The 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the allegations. Notice to the 2nd opposite party sent again by E-mail was delivered, but they did not enter appearance. Hence, the name was called in open court and set ex-parte.
3. Based on the pleadings of the complainant and the 1st opposite party the following issues were framed;
1) Whether the complainant has succeeded in proving the manufacturing defect of the mobile phone?
2) Whether opposite parties failed to provide proper service of the product during warranty period.
3) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
4) Whether the complaint is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5) Any other reliefs.
4. As the complainant has been continuously absent for the proceedings, the case was taken for orders based on merit.
5. As per Section 38(6) of CP Act, 2019, every case shall be heard by District Commission on the basis of proof affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record”.
6. As the complainant failed to file proof affidavit and mark any document as evidence, this Commission is not in position to adjudicate on the merits of the case. Moreover, the complainant had been continuously absent from the proceedings, which indicate that he is not interested to pursue the case.
7. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed. The complainant is not entitled to any relief.
Pronounced in open court on this the 24th day of May, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V,
PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K,
MEMBER.
Documents marked from the side of the complainant: NIl
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: NIL
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: NIL
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: NIL
Cost : NIL
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
