Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/232/2018

ROHIT KOTWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

ARVIND KHAJURIA

04 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

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

                                                          .

 Case File  No                   11/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution       18-04-2018

 Date of Decision           10-09-2018

 

Rohit Kotwal,

S/O Ravinder Kotwal,

R/O H.No.407 Sector-1,

Channi Himmat,Jammu.

                                                                                                                  Complainant

              V/S

1.Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.

   Through its Managing Director,

    A-25 Ground Floor Front Tower,

    Mohan Co-operative Industrial estate,

   New  Delhi-1100442.

2.Dhruv Trading Corporation, F696 First Floor

   K.K.Complex, Opposite Krishna Building,

  New Plot, Jammu.

3.A.R. Electronics Samsung Service Centre,

   First Floor,City Plaza,Adjoining Fortune Inn Rivera,

  Gulab Singh Marg,Prem Nagar Old Heritage City,

   Jammu,J&K-180001.

                                                                                                  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.Nitin Sambyal & Associate,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Arvind Khajuria,Advocate for OP1&3 present.

Nemo for OP2.

 

                                                   ORDER

 

                         Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that; complainant is said to have purchased a handset of Samsung Company bearing Model No.Samsung Galaxy S8(4G)dual sim on,08-06-2017 from OP2,against sale consideration of Rs.57,900/ (copy of invoice is annexed as Annexure-A),however, handset alleged to have been marred by defects, like automatic hanging, phone auto restart, low battery backup, overheating within warranty period and same was taken to OP3,i.e.authorised service centre,on,05-01-2018 ,after reaching the office of OP3 complainant handed over the said handset to the engineers of OP3for rectifying the defects, after checking, the engineers of OP3 told him to deposit the said handset for proper check up and further they will inform him after rectifying the problems developed in the said handset. That after two days the engineers of OP3 asked him to take the delivery of the handset and immediately after receiving information,complainant approached OP3 and the engineers of OP3 handed over the handset to him with the assurance that the defects in the said handset were cured and now the said handset will function properly (copy of job sheet annexed as Annexure-B).That after receiving the said handset, complainant again started using the said handset with the hope that the defects in the said handset will be cured, but the same problems persisted. Complainant further submitted that he repeatedly approached OP3, but it 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 to the tune of Rs.57,900/- and in addition, prays for compensation under different heads to the tune of Rs.40,000/-.

                  On the other hand,OP 1&3 have filed written version and while denying the allegations of complainant, went on to submit that present complaint alleges manufacturing defect in the product, it is important to mention here that alleged defect cannot be determined on the simplicitor submissions of complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. The complainant has not only miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault, but also has not placed on record any analysis test report for the perusal of this Forum. It is further submitted that as per record of OP3,i.e.authorised Service Centre of OP1,complainant approached OP3 on,05-10-2018 and has reported problem while using the handset and complained of the problems viz over heating/phone auto restarts, battery backup low, accordingly the handset of complainant was immediately examined by the service engineer of service centre without any delay and was checked thoroughly, and no problem/defect was found in the handset, but only on the request of complainant, the software of the handset was updated and the handset of complainant was handed over to him and only after fully satisfied with the work carried out by the service engineer of service centre & took the delivery of the handset. However, such kind of minor technical problems generally occur due to mishandling of the unit, as such the answering OPs have not committed any negligence or deficiency service with the result complainant has not suffered  any mental, as well as, physical agony is not entitled to any compensation, as such, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. The OP 1&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 1&3, therefore, complaint is misconceived and liable to the dismissed.

           At the same time OP2 filed written version and denied all the allegation in toto.

                      Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Rohit Gupta. Complainant has placed on record, copy of retail invoice and copies of job sheets, collectively.

                      On the other hand,Ops.1&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 1&3 for removal of alleged defects,however,Ops 1&3 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 1&3 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 and affidavit of Rohit Gupta. On the other hand,Ops 1&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 and affidavit of  Rohit Gupta . Therefore, it appears Ops 1&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 1&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 1&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 08-06-2017,whereas,complainant for the first time approached OP3, with the complaint, on,05-01-2018,i.e.after making use of handset  for about seven 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.57,900/-,therefore, we proposed to settle complaint for sum of Rs.46,400/-,inclusive  all heads.

                In the afore quoted back drop, complaint is allowed and Ops 1&3 are directed to refund 80% of  sum of  Rs.46,400/-to complainant, who shall return the defective handset alongwith accessories to Ops 1&3.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

Announced                                                        (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

10-09-2018                                                               President

                                                                            District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                 Jammu.

                                                                                 

Ms.Vijay Angral          

Member

                                                                                              

       Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

       Member