STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/6/A/1331/2017 null SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - 24TH FLOOR, TWO HORIZON CENTRE, GOLF COURSE ROAD, SECTOR 43, DLF PH-V GURGAON. NCDRC,HARYANA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SAURABH RAO PRESENT ADDRESS - H.NO. 444, SECTOR-3 PART-1, HUDA REWARI. NCDRC,HARYANA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

MR. NARESH KATYAL, PRESIDING MEMBER MR. SURESH CHANDER KAUSHIK, MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

MR. DEVINDER KUMAR, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MR. ROHIT DUGGAL, PROXY COUNSEL FOR MR. VISHAL AGGARWAL, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.

DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Date of Institution: 06.11.2017 Date of final hearing: 28.10.2024 Date of pronouncement: 05.02.2025 First Appeal No.1331 of 2017 IN THE MATTER OF:-

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon through its MD/GM.

2. Quick Service Centre, Authorised service centre of Samsung India Ltd.

Koshaliya Tower, Model Town, Rewari through its owner/authorized person.

.....Appellants Versus

1. Saurabh Rao, Advocate S/o Sh. Sunil Rao, Advocate, R/o H.No. 444, Sector-

3, Part-1, HUDA, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari, Haryana.

…..Complainant/respondent

2. Bookmy offer.com, Saturday Snday Media Internet Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 581, Basement, Sector-43, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon through its Managing Directors Smt. Nehaverma and Sh. Jai Parkash.

…..Respondents CORAM: Sh. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.

Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member Argued by:- Mr. Devinder Kumar, counsel for appellants.

Mr. Rohit Duggal, proxy counsel for Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, counsel for respondent No.1.

ORDER

NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

There is delay of 11 days in filing of this appeal. To condone it, an application has been filed, duly supported by affidavit. Delay in filing of this appeal stands condoned, as reasons specified in application and accompany affidavit do constitute sufficient cause.

2. Challenge in this Appeal No.1331 of 2017 has been invited by appellants/OPs No. 2 & 3 against order dated 19.09.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Rewari (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.259 of 2016, vide which complainant’s complaint has been allowed.

3. Factual matrix: Complainant ordered Samsung Power Bank 16800 Mah on 31.05.2016 from OP No. 1. It was delivered to him by OP No. 1 and he paid Rs.548/- including its cost and delivery charges. As per plea; OP No. 1 delivered power bank 20800 Mah instead of Power Bank No. 16800 and no guarantee/warranty card has been found in parcel. It is alleged that he visited showroom of OP No. 2 and came to know that product delivered by OP No. 1 is not genuine. He visited customer care centre of OP No. 2 and authorized person of customer care declared subject product as fake. On 03.07.2016, he made complaint to OP No. 1, who had given assurance to solve his problem within 24 to 48 hours. As per plea; OP neither replaced fake product nor returned the amount till date and by alleging deficiency in their service; complainant filed complaint for issuance directions against OPs to replace fake Samsung Power Bank and to deliver a brand new genuine Samsung Power Bank; to pay him Rs.50,000/- on account of mental, physical and economical pain and harassment.

4. None had appeared on behalf of OP No.1 in proceedings of complaint and it was proceeded against ex-parte vide learned District Consumer Commission’s order dated 23.08.2016.

5. OPs No. 2 & 3 raised contest in complaint. In its defense; various preliminary objections i.e. complaint being baseless, devoid of merits, without containing cause of action, bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary/proper parties, territorial jurisdiction, there being concealment of facts and complaint being filed with mischievous intention and thus abuse of process of law have been