Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/308/2018

ANANYA GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG - Opp.Party(s)

ANUJ MALHOTRA

24 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT    CONSUMER     DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM, JAMMU

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

                                                         

 Case File  No.              127/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution   :  21-07-2018

 Date of Decision      :    15-10-2018

 

Ananya Gupta,

S/O Ajay Gupta,

R/O Plot No.40 Sarwal Colony,

Near J&K Bank,Jammu.

                                                                                                                Complainant

                V/S

1. Samsung India Through its Manager,

20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre

Gold Course Road, Sector 43 DLF PH-V,

         Gurgaon,Haryana-122202.

  2.   Kay Tee Rhythma,434/A Sawhney Stop,

        Gandhi Nagar,Jammu.

  3.   A.R. Electronics, F 696,First Floor,

         K.K.Complex New Plot,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.Anuj Malhotra,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Arvind Khajuria,Advocate for Ops,1&3,present.

Nemo for OP2.

                                                       

                                                                  ORDER

 

                         Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that complainant is said to have purchased  mobile phone Samsung A520,on,01-08-2017,against sale consideration of Rs.28,000/-from OP2,(copy of bill is annexed as Annexure-A)According to complainant, after purchasing the handset, he started using the said handset and after some days he started experiencing some problems, since the handset started getting very hot, in the month of September,2017,complainant approached OP3 for repair of handset, but they refused to entertain the complaint of complainant and told him that this is normal phenomenon and he do not need to worry. Believing on the employees of OP3 complainant came back and started using the handset, but again after sometime the said handset started showing other problems, a part from the heating problem the said handset had also developed certain other problems i.e. No Network and the handset started ringing at the silent mode which caused various difficulties and harassment. According to complainant again in the month of October,2017 he reported the mal functioning of the said device to OP3 and this time complainant was made to wait for 5 hours in the service centre on the pretext of repairing of the said handset. Allegation of complainant is that he repeatedly approached OP3 for redresal of his grievance, but all in vain. Further allegation of complainant is that he has been cheated by the Ops firstly by selling defective handset and thereafter causing harassment and had made to suffer from pillar to post for getting his handset repaired from the service centre. Complainant also submits that neither defects have been removed by Ops, nor redressed his grievance, which according to complainant constitutes deficiency in service,therefore,prays for refund of cost of handset to the tune of Rs.28,000-and in addition, also prays for compensation of Rs.1,15,000/-including litigation charges.

                 On the other hand,Ops 1&3 have filed written version and while denying the allegations of complainant, went on to submit that as per record complainant approached OP3,only once,on,22-06-2018 and has reported problem like sometime Network problem,hang,,auto vibrate battery percentage not shown after 78% issues, accordingly mobile unit of complainant was immediately examined by the service engineer of OP3 without any delay and was checked thoroughly.Threreafter,the employee of OP3 found some problem in the handset, but being a valuable costumer the Ops immediately replaced the PBA & KIT of the handset,accordingly, the handset was handed over to him and only after fully satisfied with the work carried out by the service engineer  of Service center and took the delivery of the mobile set.However,such kind of minor problems generally occurred due to mishandling of the unit, as such the Ops have not committed any negligence or deficiency in service. The Ops 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,therefore,complaint is misconceived and liable to the dismissed.

                      Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavit of Virender Kumar. Complainant has placed on record, copy of tax invoice.

           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 1&3 came up with the version that alleged defects were not covered under warranty.

                   However, on the other hand, complainant filed his own duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Virender Kumar .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 . Therefore, it appears Ops 1&3have 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 the afore quoted back drop, complaint is allowed and Ops 1&3 are directed to refund Rs.28,000 (i.e. cost of handset)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)

15-10-2018                                                               President

                                                                            District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                 Jammu.

                                                                                 

Ms.Vijay Angral          

Member

                                                                                              

       Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

       Member