Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/19/2018

AJAY BAKSHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

GUNI TECHNOLOGIES - Opp.Party(s)

MANJEET PARTAP

04 Apr 2018

ORDER

       DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

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

                                                          .

 Case File  No               360/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution      15-12-2017

 Date of Decision        13-03-2018

 

Ajay Bakshi ,

S/O late Sh.Vishwa Nath,

R/O H.No.82,Sec-3,Lower Roop Nagar,

Tehsil Akhnoor,Distt.Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                Complainant

                       V/S

1.M/S Gunni Associates,

  Near Citizen’s Cooperative Bank,

  Akhnoor.

2.Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.(Head Office)

      C/O 2^nd,3^rd and 4th Floor Tower-C Vipul Tech Square,

  Golf Course Road,Gurgaon Sector 43.

 3.A.R.Electronics(Service Centre),

   C/O F696 Ist Floor,K.K.Complex,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.

     

  Mr.Manjeet Partap Singh,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Arvind Khajuria,Advocate for OP2&3,present.

Nemo for OP 1.

 

                                                      ORDER

                    Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that complainant is said to have purchased Mobile phone Samsung A510 Black model SM-A510FZKFINS and Serial No.RZ8H90W5F JN   (352810081126852),on,27-12-2016,against sale consideration of Rs.21,300/-, from OP1,copy of bill is annexed as Annexure-A.According to complainant, to the surprise after one day of purchase, when he inserted SIM cards, the handset showed defect, as it was showing no network, though the SIM cards were active, as the same were working in other phone, he immediately approached OP1 and apprised him regarding manufacturing defect to which he was advised by OP1 to approach OP3 with an assurance that the same will be replaced by them only, since they are manufacturers and complainant approached OP3 and apprised them of the situation faced by him and requested them to replace the handset, since it was having a manufacturing defect and was within the warranty period, but OP3 instead of replacing the same checked the handset and returned it back to him with an assurance that the fault has been rectified. Allegation of complainant is that he took the phone, but it was showing same defect again and again and when he approached OP3 he was told that it is working fine. It is important to mention that both the slots were not working and Ops were apprised of the same and on,29-03-2017 the same fault persisted in the handset showing no network, complainant again approached OP3 and apprised them that the handset is not working, since the same has been purchased few days back, it should be replaced with a new working one, but OP1 blatantly refused to replace the same. Allegation of complainant is that he repeatedly approached OPs, but they failed to remove the defects, and same, according to complainant were manufacturing in nature, therefore, in the final analysis, for deficiency in service, complainant prays for refund of cost of handset  and in addition, prays for compensation under different heads to the tune of Rs.1,30,000/-.

                  On the other hand,Ops 2&3 have filed written version and while denying the allegations of complainant, went on to submit that complainant approached OP3 i.e. service centre  on,19-07-2017 under complaint No.4245467696 and has reported problem while using the handset and complained of the problem viz charging problem, auto off and sometime touch proper not work issues, accordingly mobile unit of the complainant was immediately examined by the service engineer of service centre No.3 without any delay and was checked thoroughly and no defect was found in the handset, but as a valuable customer and on the request of the complainant the Sub-PBA & Tape of the complainant unit was replaced and the handset of the complainant was handed over to  the complainant and only after fully satisfied with the work carried out by the service Engineer of service center & took the delivery of the mobile set. However, such kind of problems generally occur due to mishandling of the handset, as such the answering Ops have not committed any negligence or deficiency in service. The Ops 2 &3 further submitted that they are still ready and willing to carry out any repairs as per warranty terms and conditions, in case any defect is found in the same.However,the onus is on the complainant to prove that there is any defect in the mobile unit. It is further submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile unit and neither there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP,therefore,complaint is misconceived and liable to the dismissed.

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

                   On the other hand,Ops 2&3 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit of Rahul Bamba Mobile Service Engineer, Jammu.

              We have perused case file and heard L/Cs appearing for the parties at length.

                  After hearing L/Cs for parties and perusing the case file, in our opinion dispute hinges around the point, as to whether or not there is any deficiency in service on the part of Ops, in failing to provide after sale service.

              Admittedly, complainant approached Ops for removal of alleged defects,however,Ops came up with the version that alleged defects were not covered under warranty. In support of alleged defence ,Ops have filed evidence affidavit of  Rahul Bamba,Mobile Service engineer and testimony of witness of Ops more or less is reproduction of contents of written version of Ops,therefore,same need no reiteration.

                  However, on the other hand, complainant filed his own duly sworn evidence affidavit. On the other hand,Ops 2&3 did not support their defence by any expert report,therefore,mere testimony of its service engineer short of any expert report looses its probative value and cannot be relied upon, because complainant supported his allegations by his own evidence affidavit . Therefore, it appears Ops 2&3  have raised the defence just to shift the liability that arisen under the warranty condition, therefore, in our opinion, act of omission and commission on the part of Ops 2&3, constitutes grave deficiency in service, therefore, same calls for interference.

                 In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that failure of Ops 2&3 to redress the grievance of complainant amounts to deficiency in service on their part,therefore,it would meet the ends of justice, in case complainant would be repaid cost of handset, but on scanning the case file, it came to fore that handset was purchased by the complainant, on 27-12-2016,whereas,complainant for the first time approached OP3, with the complaint, on,19-09-2017,i.e.after making use of handset  for about nine months. It is a matter of common knowledge that electronic items, particularly electronic gadgets like in hand, after some time are sold on reduced price. Likewise, complainant used handset for nine months, definitely its present value can by no stretch of imagination, still would be Rs.21,300/-,therefore, we proposed to settle complaint for sum of Rs.15,975/-,inclusive  all heads.

                In the afore quoted back drop, complaint is allowed and Ops 2&3 are directed to refund 75% of  sum of  Rs.15975/-to complainant, who shall return the defective handset alongwith accessories to Ops 2&3.The Ops 2&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

Announced                                                        (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

13-03-2018                                                               President

                                                                            District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                 Jammu.

                                                                                

Ms.Vijay Angral          

Member

                                                                                              

       Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

       Member