Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/19/374

B Mahendrakumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India - Opp.Party(s)

03 Nov 2021

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN                : PRESIDENT

SMT.PREETHA G NAIR            : MEMBER

SRI.VIJU.V.R                           : MEMBER

CC.NO.374/19 (Filed on : 22.10.2019)

ORDER DATED : 03.11.2021

 

COMPLAINANT

 

          B.Mahendrakumar,

          Karthika, TC.16/871 (1)

          SKNRA-54, Thycaud.P.O

          Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram

          Pin - 695014

 

                   (Party in Person)

         

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd,

Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110001, India

 

2. The Manager, Appario Retail Pvt Ltd,

No.1/B, Indospace Logistics Park,

Puduvoyal, Duraimalloor village,

Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvalluvar,

Tamil Nadu – 601206

 

3. The Manager,

Samsung Service Centre,

Shop No.205, First Floor,

Annas Arcade, Spencer Junction,

M.G.Road, Thiruvananthapuram

 

(OP1 by Adv.Reena Williams)

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN                : PRESIDENT

      1.   This complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

             2.   This complaint is filed by the complainant in respect of the non availability of after sales service in respect of the non availability of after sales service in respect of the Samsung Smart Watch purchased by his son from the opposite party by paying Rs.17,990/-. As per the claim of the opposite party the said watch is having one year warranty and the same is a water proof product. Subsequently due to rain some water entered into the watch and when approached the service centre of opposite party they demanded Rs.14,266/- for the service and they were not ready to provide free warranty as promised. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievances. The opposite party entered appearance and filed vakkalath and when the matter was posted for written version of the opposite party or settlement, the complainant filed a memo stating that the dispute between the parties to the proceedings is amicably settled out of court.

             3.   As the complainant filed a settlement memo, this Commission suo moto advanced this case from 17.12.2021 to this date. The settlement memo filed by the complainant accepted and recorded. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties to the dispute, we find that this is a fit case to be dismissed as settled.

                    In the result, the complaint is dismissed as settled. There will be no order as to costs.

                   A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

           Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open court, this the 3^rd  November 2021.     

                                                                                                                                                                              Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN   :  PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                                                                                 Sd/-                                     

PREETHA G NAIR   :  MEMBER

                                                                 Sd/-                        

VIJU.V.R   : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

CC.NO.374/19

ORDER DATED : 03.11.2021