Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 580.
Instituted on : 26.11.2018.
Decided on : 18.07.2022.
Manish Saini age 34 years, s/o Kuldeep R/o H.No.283/15, Tagore Gali, Gohana Road, Rohtak, Mobile No. 9315339867
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Singh Mobile HUB, Near Rajendra Palace, Gohana Adda, Rohtak through its Proprietor
- Samsung Care Centre, HUDA Complex, Opp. Cinecity Complex, Rohtak through its Manager
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office at 6th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi through its Director
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Naveen, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No. 3.
Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the present complaint, as per the complainant are that the complainant had purchased a Samsung J-7 Max Mobile phone bearing IMEI No.353107109113511815 vide bill dated 21.02.2018 for a sum of Rs.17,000/- from opposite party no. 1. The opposite party no. 1 had assured him that in case of any default occurred in the mobile phone one year free warranty/replacement will be provided by the company. The said mobile started creating problem after few days of the purchase. The phone is having battery problem, automatic switch off, function on and off problem and software problem. On this, complainant approached to opposite party no. 2 and got deposited his handset for repairing 2-3 times to opposite party no. 3, but no job sheet was issued by them to the complainant. The mobile phone has not been properly repaired and complainant is still facing inconvenience in using the said mobile. It is further submitted that opposite parties are unnecessarily harassing and humiliating the complainant and supplied him a defective mobile and played fraud with him and there is clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of the mobile set i.e. Rs.17000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum with compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.3 in its reply has submitted that answering respondent does its business of selling products with its dealers on principal to principal basis. They had no control or interference in the business of the dealer. It is further submitted that the answering respondent is never liable for any statement made by the dealer in his personal capacity and their role is limited up to the product quality and warranty benefits of the unit in question. This warranty is provided by manufacturer under some terms and conditions which must be followed by the customers. In fact complainant never visited to any service center of answering respondent. Answering opposite party has an online system to enter all claims/complaints vide IEMI/Sr. No. in each and every case but in the present complaint as per limited details mentioned in the complaint, no complaint no./job sheet no. has been provided by complainant and for the reason, no details found in the online system of the answering respondent which reflects that complainant had never visited the service center of answering respondent. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no. 3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, notice sent to opposite party no. 1 and 2 received back served but none has appeared on their behalf. As such opposite party no. 1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.01.2019 of this Commission.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex. CW-1/A, documents Ex.C-1 on 24.02.2021 and closed his evidence on 16.07.2021. Ld. Counsel for opposite party no.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW-1/A, document Ex.R-1 and closed his evidence on 08.09.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that in the present case grievance of the complainant is that the mobile purchased by the complainant was having heating problem, on-off and software problem which appeared just after purchase of the said mobile. But to prove the same complainant has only placed on record copy of bill and affidavit. Neither any complaint number nor any job sheet etc. has been placed on record by the complainant, from which it can be proved that the mobile of the complainant was defective.
6. In the absence of any evidence, complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
18.07.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Shyam Lal, Member
