Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/667/2017

VIKAS SHANT - Complainant(s)

Versus

GIONEE INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

LAKHAN KUMAR

08 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

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

                                                          .

 Case File  No               250/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution   :    10-10-2017

 Date of Decision      :     25-04-2018

 

Vikas Kant,

S/O MUkesh Kumar,

R/O H.No.257,Sector Ist

Vinayak Nagar,Muthi,

Jammu J&K-181205.

                                                                                                                                      Complainant

              V/S

1.Gionee India Pvt.Ltd.B-a/E-14,

Second Floor,Mohan Cooperative

Industrial Estate,Mathura Road,New Delhi-110044.

2.Anil Communication 39-B2,South Block,

  Bahu Plaza,Jammu.

3.Sai Enterprises-Jammu,167 A/B,

  Ist Floor Railway Road,Nanak Nagar,

  Near Vermani Departmental Store,Jammu J&K 180004.

(Authorised Service Centre).

                                                                                                                                                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.

      Mr.Lakhan Kumar,Advocate for complainant, present.

   Nemo for OPs.

                                                            ORDER

                                             Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint in hand are that; complainant purchased a Mobile Gionee Model Gionee S6s 32 Gb gold   from Op2,on,29-10-2016,for sale consideration of Rs.18,000/-,(Copy of bill is annexed as Annexure-A),but the handset was marred by defects, like handset got heated a lot while charging and talking. Complainant approached OP3 on,15-06-2017 for removal of defects occurred in the handset, copy of job card is annexed as Annexure-B.Allegation of complainant is that after getting the handset repaired it did not function properly and the same problem persisted, he again approached OP3 for removal of defects in the handset on,24-07-2017 copy of job card is annexed as Annexure-C. Complainant further submitted that even after repair of handset by OP No.3 the handset did not work properly and developed number of problems such as hanging problem, software corrupt and heating problem and complainant was not able to receive and make calls number of times as he is an Advocate by profession and he has to be in contact with his clients and suffered a lot due to malfunctioning of handset. Further allegation of complainant is that he repeatedly approached OP3 for rectification of defects, but it failed to remove the defects, and same according to complainant constitutes deficiency in service, hence the present complaint. In the final analysis, complainant prays for refund of Rs.18000/-(i.e. cost of handset) 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 19-12-2017 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 affidavit of Ajay Kumar.The complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice and copies of job cards.

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

                Briefly stated facts of the case are that complainant purchased a Mobile Gionee Model Gionee S6s 32 Gb gold   from Op2,on,29-10-2016,for sale consideration of Rs.18,000/-,but the handset was marred by defects, like handset got heated a lot while charging and talking. Complainant approached OP3 on,15-06-2017 for removal of defects occurred in the handset.Allegation of complainant is that after getting the handset repaired it did not function properly and the same problem persisted, he again approached OP3 for removal of defects in the handset on,24-07-2017. Complainant further submitted that even after repair of handset by OP No.3 the handset did not work properly and developed number of problems such as hanging problem, software corrupt and heating problem and complainant was not able to receive and make calls number of times as he is an Advocate by profession and he has to be in contact with his clients and suffered a lot due to malfunctioning of handset. Further allegation of complainant is that he repeatedly approached OP3 for rectification of defects, but it failed to remove the defects, and same according to complainant constitutes deficiency in service,

                        The complainant in his own affidavit and  affidavit of Ajay Kumar 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 affidavit of Ajay Kumar,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 affidavit of Ajay Kumar 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 are directed to replace the handset or in the alternative refund the cost of handset to the tune of Rs.18,000/- to the complainant, who shall return the mobile phone, alongwith accessories to Ops. 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  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

    25-04-2018                                                                       Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                               

                                                                            

Ms.Vijay Angral                                              

 Member    

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member