Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/566/2017

SANJEEV KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

GIONEE INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

ROULIKA RASOTRA

10 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT    CONSUMER     DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM, JAMMU

                (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                         

 Case File  No               208/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution     08/09/2017

 Date of Decision          10 /02/2018

 

Sanjeev Kumar,

S/O Late Veer Nath,

R/O H.No.189,Lane No.4,

New Plot,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                            Complainant

               V/S

1.GIONEE INDIA HQ E9 Block No.1

Ground  Floor Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road, New Delhi.

2. KT RYTHM  Gandhi Nagar,Jammu.

3.Gionee Service Centre,167 A/B Ist Floor,

    Near Varmani Nanak Nagar,Departmental Store,

   Jammu/180004.

                                                                                                                                            Opposite parties

CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary   (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                      Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                                Member.

 

In the matter of  Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

     Roulika Rasotra,Advocate for complainant, present.

     Nemo for OPs.

 

 

ORDER

 

                    Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint in hand are that; complainant purchased a Mobile Gionee S6 Golden from Op2,on,24/03/2016,for sale consideration of Rs.21,499/. According to complainant,on,30/08/2016  the handset was marred by defects, like handset got heated, charging problem, as such it was impossible to use phone properly and was not in a position to talk with anybody and there was continuous problem again and again. Complainant approached OP3 (i.e. the authorized centre)and upon examination of said handset OP3 took into his custody and the OP3 after updating the software handed over the handset by giving assurance that in future there will be no problem in the handset. Complainant submits that when he reached home the handset again started creating problem in charging and display and got heated, he approached OP3 on,13/03/2017 and again on,14/04/2017,the complainant once again accompanied by his friend approached OP3 and like the previous occasion on this date OP3 told him to come after few days so that handset to be checked properly that what type of problem the handset having. Allegation of complainant is that he repeatedly approached Ops for either replacement of handset or refund of handset, but OPs turned down the request of complainant. Constrained bay the act of Ops,complainant served legal notice to OP1,but there was no reply to the legal notice which according to complainant constitutes deficiency in service,therefore,complainant prays for either replacement or  refund of cost of handset ,i.e.Rs.21,499/and in addition, prays for  compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/-under different heads.

                       Notices were sent to the OPs alongwith copies of complaint through registered covers with acknowledgment due and as per record the notices were received by the Ops, but they did not choose to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period provided under the Act, so their right to file written version was closed vide order dated 31/10/2017 and the complainant was ordered to produce evidence by way of affidavits in support of the complaint.

            The complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavits of Vijay Kumar and Dheeraj Meenia,respectively.The complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice ,copies of job cards and copy of legal notice.

                     We have perused the case file and also heard learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

            Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of complaint in hand are that complainant purchased a Gionee S Plus(Golden Colour)mobile handset,(dual Sims)from Op2,on,01-12-2015,for sum of Rs.17,000/copy of retail invoice is annexed as Annexure-A on the file. According to complainant, immediately after its purchase, handset was marred by defects, complainant approached OP3 to replace the handset with a new one as assured by OP2 at the time of purchase, but they flatly refused to do so, however they agreed to  repair the handset and assured that there would be no complaint in future, compelled by the circumstances complainant agreed to it and handedover the handset to OP3.Complainant submits that after some days OP3 returned the handset to him after repairing it,however,after some days, the same problem persisted and he again OP3 and again requested to replace the handset with a new one, but OPs turned down the request of complainant, which according to complainant constitutes deficiency in service.

                            The complainant in his own affidavit and the affidavits of witnesses have supported the averments of the complaint. There is no evidence on record produced by other side to rebut the case of complainant. So from perusal of complaint, documentary and other evidence produced by the complainant, it appears that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case as narrated by him in the complaint. The complaint is fully supported by the affidavit of complainant, and affidavits of Vijay Kumar and Dheeraj Meenia,respectively,so, in the given circumstances of the case, and in view of the evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments of complainant in complaint. This is a case of deficiency in service. The Ops despite service of notice, sent by the Forum through registered cover have not taken any action to represent the case before this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant, or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by the Ops in this complaint and there is also no evidence in rebuttal. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 2(b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, which provides that in a case, where the OPs omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation, the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-clause (ii) of the Section 11, clearly provides that even where the OPs omits or fails to taken any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                  In addition complainant has also supported the averments contained in the complaint by duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavits of Vijay Kumar and Dheeraj Meenia,respectively which are corroborative of the facts contained in the complaint. From perusal of averments contained in the complaint, affidavit of complainant and documents placed on record, it is manifestly clear that from the very beginning, handset started giving trouble,whereas,despite repeated requests to Ops the handset could not be made workable,therefore,in our opinion once high-end hand set purchased by complainant,obviously,without any rhyme or reason, question of grouse, regarding fault of handset would not have arisen, instead of making use of it. Rather we think Ops should have redressed grievance of complainant, who spent such huge money and banked upon such multinational brand, but it seems that instead of well coming the consumer,Ops have chosen to multiply  suffering, which of course is unwarranted and unexpected from such brand. Therefore, in the light of unrebutted averments contained in the complaint and documents on record, we are of the opinion that complainant successfully made out a case of deficiency in service by Ops.

                      Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and Ops 1&3 are directed to replace the handset or in the alternative refund the cost of handset to the tune of Rs.21,499/ to the complainant, who shall return the mobile phone, alongwith accessories to Ops1&3. Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.5000/ for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.5 000/, respectively. The Ops 1&3 shall comply the order, within one month, from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties, as per requirement of the Act. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                                    Khalil Choudhary

                                                                                     (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                                            President

Announced                                                           District Consumer Forum

    10/02/2018                                                                       Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                               

                                                                            

Ms.Vijay Angral                                              

 Member    

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member