STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Admission : 10.10.2018 Date of Final Hearing : 13.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.2026 SC/5/A/131/2018 M/s S.K. Enterprises Near Ulka Devi Temple, Himsagar Hotel, Chaudhan Patta, Almora Through its authorised signatory Sh. Ravindra Arya S/o Late Gusain Ram Village Dunar, Almora, Uttarakhand (Through: Sh. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate)

…..Appellant VERSUS

1. Sh. Yogesh Parihar S/o Sh. Indra Singh Parihar R/o Ghatbagad Ward, Station Road, Bageshwar (Through: None)

…..Respondent No. 1

2. Manager HCL Services Limited Contact Centre, 180040 Samsung Sh. Balaji Tower, behind Yak Petrol Pump

55, Rajpur Road, Dehradun (Through: None)

…..Respondent No. 2 Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. C.M. Singh, Member

ORDER

(Per: Mr. C.M. Singh, Member):

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 24.08.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Almora (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 22 of 2018 styled as Sh. Yogesh Parihar vs. Manager, Samsung Service Centre and Anr., wherein and whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed directing the opposite parties, jointly or severally, to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 58,695/- with Rs. 10,000/- towards mental harassment, Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation and Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses incurred by the complainant in visiting Dehradun.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant purchased a mobile handset of Samsung company bearing model No. S7 Edge on dated 08.05.2016 from Kumaon Communications, Mangal Padav, Bareily Road, Haldwani for a sum of Rs. 58,695/-. On dated 09.09.2017, the said mobile hand set developed defect in touch screen, whereupon the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 – Samsung Service Centre, S.K. Enterprises, near Ulkadevi Mandir, Himsagar Hotel, Chaudhanpata, Almora for repair. The service center diagnosed damages in display and with the complainant’s concern, replaced the same upon payment of Rs. 13,698/- and returned the said mobile handset to the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant experienced overheating and charging issues, which were not present prior to the said repair. On advice of opposite party No .1, the complainant got the battery replaced by paying Rs. 2,111/-. Despite this, the defects persisted including overheating, slow charging, connectivity issue and low sound output. Upon approaching again to the opposite party No. 1, the complainant was directed to approach the opposite party No. 2. Accordingly, on dated 30.10.2017, the complainant submitted the said mobile handset at opposite party No. 2 – Manager, HCL Services Limited. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 informed the complainant that the said mobile handset had been repaired and was ready for collection. Further upon visiting the service center, the complainant was informed that the said mobile handset had not been repaired and that its motherboard was defective and requires replacement which will cost Rs. 15,000/-. The complainant contends that no such defects were existed earlier and alleged that the opposite parties provided misleading information and failed to rectify the defects thereby causing financial loss, mental agony and harassment leading to file the present complaint.

3. The notices were duly served upon the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, however, they failed to appear before the District Commission. Accordingly, vide order dated 06.03.2018 and 23.03.2018 respectively, the matter was proceeded ex-parte against the opposite parties.

4. The District Commission after hearing ex-parte arguments of the complainant and after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record, has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 24.08.2018 wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed in the above manner.

5. O