Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/58/2018

UDHEY SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

GIONEE - Opp.Party(s)

INPERSON

21 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

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

                                                          .

 Case File  No.:                403/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution      17-01-2018

 Date of Decision      :    27-10-2018

 

Vinkle Uday Singh

S/O Prithvi Raj,

R/O Sohal,Tehsil Paddar

Distt.Kishtwar C/O Secretary

J&K Legislative Assembly, Secretariat.

                                                                                                                                -Complainant

              V/S

1.Gionee India Pvt.Ltd.

  E-9 Block No.B-1 Ground Floor,

Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,

 New Delhi-110044.

2.Gionee Service Centre Sai Enterprises,

 167 A/B Ist Floor Railway Road,

Near Vermani Deptt.Store,Nanak Nagar,Jammu.

3.M/S Bhushan Radios(17-18)Opposite Petrol Pump,

Below Gumat,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                                -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.

 

Complainant in person, present.

Nemo for OPs.

 

                                          ORDER.

 

                   Grievance of complainant lies in short compass, in that complainant said to have purchased  handset from OP3 on,30-10-2017 for a sale consideration of Rs.12,500/-however, within months, it has developed some technical fault, complainant approached Service Centre of Gionee Company,i.e.OP2,who in turn repaired the handset and returned to him. Allegation of complainant is that within a day it has developed a technical fault again and now it is continue and the company repaired the handset 4-5 times, but still it is under technical fault. Complaint further proceeds on the premise that the company is neither repairing nor replacing the handset and this act of OPs constitutes deficiency in service. In the final analysis complainant, prays for refund of cost of handset and in addition, prays for compensation to the tune of Rs.10,500/-including litigation charges.

                          Notices alongwith copies of complaint were sent to the opposite parties through registered cover,however,despite lapse of statutory period, the opposite parties have not taken any action 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. Thereafter, the right of the opposite parties to file reply was closed vide order dated 12-03-2018. complainant was directed to adduce evidence by way of affidavits in support of his case.

                              Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit. Complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice and copies of job sheets.

                          We have perused case file and heard complainant at length.

                                   Briefly stated, grievance of complainant lies in short compass, in that complainant said to have purchased Gionee phone for a sale consideration of Rs.12,500.According to complainant, within warranty period, handset was marred by defects, which were duly brought in the notice of  opposite parties, but they  failed to remove the problem in the handset, so much so, he approached OP2 for rectification of said defects, but it too failed to remove the defects. Complaint further proceeds on the premise that instead of keeping the word,OPs resiled from its commitment, in that not only failed to replace the handset, but also failed to remove the defect. In the final analysis complainant submits that there is grave deficiency in service on the part of Ops,therefore,prays for refund of cost of handset and in addition, prays for compensation to the tune of Rs.10,500/-including litigation charges.

                               The complainant in his own affidavit has 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 his own evidence affidavit,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  which is corroborative of the facts contained in the complaint. From perusal of averments contained in the complaint and affidavit of complainant, 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 against 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 refund Rs.12,500/-(i.e.the cost of handset) to the complainant, who shall return the mobile phone, alongwith accessories to OPs. Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.5,000/-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

 27-10 -2018                                                              Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                               

      

Ms.Vijay Angral          

  Member                                                                                              

.               

    Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member