Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/244/2017

ARUN GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LETV - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL BILORIA

22 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

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

                                                          .

 Case File  No                128/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution   :    26-07-2017

 Date of Decision      :     14-05-2018

 

Arun Gupta,

S/O Sh.Des Raj,

R/O H.No.93 Krishna Nagar,

Canal Road,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                                Complainant

             V/S

1.LeEco(LE TV) through its

  Managing Director (Registered Office address

Ground Floor,Beech,E-1 Manyata Embassy

Business Park Outer Ring Road,Nagawara,

Banglore,India-560045).

2.Authorised Service Centre of LeEco(LE TV)

Maa Saraswati Computers 150A First Floor,

Gandhi Nagar 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.

 

Mr.Parmeet Singh,Advocate for complainant, present.

Nemo for OPs.

                                                                  ORDER

 

                     Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that; complainant said to have purchased handset model No.LETVX509 through online from Flipkart on,06-11-2016 for a sale consideration of Rs.9,999/-(copy of bill Annexure-A). Allegation of complainant is that within one month from its purchase, handset was marred by defects, like excessive hanging at length, over heating and battery drainage and on,01-02-2017 the handset suddenly started overheating and battery drainage and on,02-02-2017 after facing above said problems, complainant approached OP2 for redressal of his grievance, but OP2 retained the handset for about three days to carry out the repair work and when he approached OP2 to inquire about his handset,OP2 asked him to come after one week (Annexure-B).Complainant further submitted that after one week he approached OP2 service centre and inquired about his handset, the service centre engineers lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. Submission of complainant is that failure of Ops to provide after sale service, constitutes deficiency in service,therefore,complainant seeks direction to Ops for refund of cost of handset to the tune of Rs,9,999/- In addition, complainant also prays for compensation under different heads to the tune of Rs.30,000/-.

                         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 Ops 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 stands closed vide order dated,25-09-2017 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 Pankaj Sabharwal.The complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice and copy of job card.

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

                              To be brief  grievance of complaint is that he said to have purchased handset model No.LETVX509 through online from Flipkart on,06-11-2016 for a sale consideration of Rs.9,999/-. Allegation of complainant is that within one month from its purchase, handset was marred by defects, like excessive hanging at length, over heating and battery drainage and on,01-02-2017 the handset suddenly started overheating and battery drainage and on,02-02-2017 after facing above said problems, complainant approached OP2 for redressal of his grievance, but OP2 retained the handset for about three days to carry out the repair work and when he approached OP2 to inquire about his handset,OP2 asked him to come after one week. Complainant further submitted that after one week he approached OP2 service centre and inquired about his handset, the service centre engineers lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.

                        The complainant in his own affidavit and affidavit of Pankaj Sabharwal 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 Pankaj Sabharwal,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 Pankaj Sabharwal 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.12,000/- 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

    14-05-2018                                                                       Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                                

                                                                           

Ms.Vijay Angral                                              

 Member    

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member