State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S S.K. Enterprises vs Yogesh Parihar & Another on 31 March, 2026
SC/5/A/131/2018 M/s S.K. Enterprises 31.03.2026
Vs.
Sh. Yogesh Parihar and Anr.
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):
1SC/5/A/131/2018 M/s S.K. Enterprises 31.03.2026 Vs. Sh. Yogesh Parihar and Anr.
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 2 SC/5/A/131/2018 M/s S.K. Enterprises 31.03.2026 Vs. Sh. Yogesh Parihar and Anr.
- 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. On having been aggrieved by the aforesaid ex-parte judgment and order of the District Commission, an appeal has been submitted by the appellant - opposite party No. 1.
6. In the grounds of appeal, it is alleged that the appellant has been wrongly impleaded in the present complaint as they have no concern with the alleged transaction of repair of mobile handset which was handled by different entity namely Khulbe Communication and Computer, Rain Basera, Mall Road, Almora; that the appellant does not deal with Samsung 3 SC/5/A/131/2018 M/s S.K. Enterprises 31.03.2026 Vs. Sh. Yogesh Parihar and Anr.
devices. The District Commission has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence produced by the appellant on record, which clearly indicates that the mobile handset in question was submitted with another entity and there is no cogent evidence to establish that the appellant rendered any services to the respondent No. 1. It is further contended that the appellant was not duly served; that the impugned ex-parte judgment and order has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice. It is also stated that the respondent No. 1 has failed to prove his case by leading sufficient evidence including expert evidence and that the complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary party, accordingly, the seller of handset in question. The findings recorded by the District Commission are stated to have been based on conjectures and surmises and without proper appreciation of the facts and law. The award of refund and compensation is arbitrarily, perverse and unjustified. Accordingly it is prayed that the impugned ex-parte judgment and order be set aside and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. Learned counsel Sh. Vaibhav Jain for the appellant has appeared. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents, hence on dated 18.10.2023 an order for hearing the appeal ex-parte has been passed against the respondents.
8. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.
9. The primary ground raised by the appellant is that they have no concern with the present complaint as they are not authorised service center of Samsung mobile handset in question. It has been contended that the repair and services were carried out by another entity named Khulbe 4 SC/5/A/131/2018 M/s S.K. Enterprises 31.03.2026 Vs. Sh. Yogesh Parihar and Anr.
Communication and Computer, Rain Basera, Mall Road, Almora, therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the appellant.
10. The contention of the appellant that they have no concern with the service center is not borne out from the record. A perusal of paper No. 8Ka/1 of the District Commission's record, which is a notice dated 06.02.2018 issued by the District Commission, reveals that the notice was received by an employee of 'Samsung Service Center, Khulbe Communication, Almora, bearing the official stamp of the said service center on dated 09.02.2018. Further paper No. 5Ka/2 of the District Commission's record, which is acknowledgment of service request of authorised Samsung service center mentioning address as "Khulbe Communication and Computer, Rain Basera, Mall Road, Almora" bears signature of an employee, who received the mobile handset in question.
11. From paper No. 23 of the appeal file, it is evident that the appellant's authorised Sh. Ravindra Arya, to represent them in legal and financial matters of the appellant firm, which is counter signed by the proprietor Smt. Geeta Khulbe. The signature of Sh. Ravindra Arya on this document (paper No. 23) is found to be similar to those bearing on the document of District Commission's record including the service report (paper No. 5Ka/2 of the District Commission's record) and services of notice by the District Commission (paper No. 8Ka/1 of the District Commission's record). It is further revealed that the address of the appellant mentioned in the application form (paper No. 20 of the appeal file) for authorised service center of Micromax is identical to that of Khulbe Communication and Computer, Rain Basera, Mall Road, Almora, which is a service center of Samsung. It is clearly established that the appellant has operating the service center of different brands from the same premises.
5SC/5/A/131/2018 M/s S.K. Enterprises 31.03.2026 Vs. Sh. Yogesh Parihar and Anr.
12. Thus, the documentary evidence including common address, similar signatures of the authorised signatory of both the entity clearly establishes that the appellant was running the service center of Samsung. The plea taken by them is merely an attempt to evade liability of operating under different trade names. The record further shows that despite repeated repairs and payments made by the respondent No. 1, the defect in the mobile handset in question were not rectified. The respondent No. 1 compelled to incur expenses of replacement of battery and display, yet the defects persisted. The service center having accepted the mobile handset in question for repair and having charged consideration for replacement of parts was under the obligation to rectify the defects. Further the complainant was informed that the handset had been repaired, but upon visiting the service center, he was told that the motherboard was defective. The failure to do so coupled with misleading representation regarding repair, clearly constitutes deficiency in service.
13. In view of the above discussion, we are in the complete agreement that the finding recorded by the District Commission in the impugned ex- parte judgment and order is well-reasoned, based on proper appreciation of the facts available on record and do not suffer from any illegality and material irregularity and warranting interference by this Commission, hence the appeal is devoid of merits. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned ex-parte judgment and order dated 24.08.2018 passed by the District Commission, Almora. Hence, the impugned ex-parte judgment and order deserves to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Impugned ex-parte judgment and order dated 24.08.2018 passed by the District Commission, Almora is affirmed. No order as to costs of the appeal.
6SC/5/A/131/2018 M/s S.K. Enterprises 31.03.2026 Vs. Sh. Yogesh Parihar and Anr.
15. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 /2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. The copy of this order alongwith original record of the District Commission, Almora be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information.
16. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) President (Mr. C.M. Singh) Member Pronounced on: 31.03.2026 7