Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/191/2018

ANURADHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG - Opp.Party(s)

INPERSON

20 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT    CONSUMER     DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM, JAMMU

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

                                                         

 Case File  No.              54/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution     18-05-2018

 Date of Decision      :    26 -09-2018

 

Anuradha Seth Kohli,

W/O Sh.Rohit Kohli,

R/O Flat  503,Block-E,Kamdhenu Homz,

Toph Sherkhania,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                -Complainant

           V/S

1.Samsung India.

   Through its Manager,

   Through its Managing Director

    A-25 Ground Floor Front Tower,

    Mohan Co-operative Industrial estate,

   New  Delhi-1100442.

2Anil Communication,Shop No.39-B2,

   South Block,Bahu Plaza, Jammu.

3 Samsung Smart Care Services,

   217,Shastri Nagar,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 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  G935 from OP2,on, 25-03-2017,against sale consideration of Rs.50,900/-vide bill No.6714,(copy of invoice is annexed as Annexure-A).According to complainant she purchased the handset with the hope and belief that the same has been manufactured by a very reputed company, but all her beliefs were shattered as after some days she started experiencing some problem in  it since the handset(device)started becoming very hot during usage within warranty period and in the month of July,2017,she approached concerned service centre of OP1,i.e.OP3 for repair of said device, but they refused to entertain the complaint and told her that this is a normal phenomenon and need not to worry. That believing the words of employees of OP3 she continued using the said handset, but again after some time the handset in question started showing other problems i.e.no network for prolonged hours and also the device used to start ringing even when put on silent mode which was very disturbing and at times even put the complainant in embarrassing situation and the handset also stopped working properly. Allegation of complainant is that again in the month of October,2017 she reported the malfunctioning of the said device to OP3 and she was made to wait for 5 hours in the service centre on the pretext of repairing of the handset and on a demand by the complainant to the employees for a job card so that she can collect the said  handset next day, but the employees of OP3 did not provide her a job card and after waiting for 5-6 hours the handset was handed over to her and it was assured by the employees of OP3 that the problems have been rectified and the handset was ready for use, but it is pertinent to show that the said device continued to show the problems and again on,10-03-2018 the said device stopped working and all its date, including various important documents got deleted. It is important to mention that complainant had some very important documents saved in the said handset. Complainant further submitted that she 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 the tune of Rs.50,900/-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 complainant has not only miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault, but also has not placed on record any analysis test report. It is submitted that as per record the complainant unit in question was out of warranty and they approached service centre only once after the expiry of warranty vide dated 14/04/2018 and has reported problem i.e.NETWORK and AUTO Restart Issues, accordingly mobile unit of complainant was immediately handed over to the service engineer of service centre without any delay and asked the customer to wait for some time and deposit the unit with the service centre  to examine the handset, but the customer is adamant and asked immediate repair. Thereafter the employee of service centre requested the complainant to wait for repair, but the complainant was adamant and same call was cancelled and for the reason best known to her took the delivery of the handset and till date the customer using the same handset.However,such kind of minor technical problems generally occur 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 her own affidavit and affidavits of Chetan Misri and Rohit Kohli,respectively. Complainant has placed on record, copy of retail invoice and copy of job sheet.

            On the other hand,Ops 1&3 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit of Joginder Paul alias (Rajesh Paul) 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  Joginder Paul alias (Rajesh Paul),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.

                         In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that failure of Ops 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 25-03-2017,whereas,complainant for the first time approached OP3, with the complaint, in the month of July,2017,i.e.after making use of handset about four months. It is a matter of common knowledge that electronic items, particularly gadgets like in hand, after some time are sold on reduced value. Like wise, complainant used handset for four months, definitely its present value can by no stretch of imagination still would be Rs.50,900/-,therefore,we proposed to settle complaint for sum of Rs.42,000/-,inclusive of all heads.

                         Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of her grievance is allowed and OPs 1&3 are directed to refund an amount in the sum of Rs.42,000/- to complainant, who shall return the mobile phone, alongwith accessories to the opposite parties. 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. On deposit of the amount in this Forum, the same shall be paid to the complainant through payees account cheque.The complaint is accordingly, disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                              Khalil Choudhary

                                                                         (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

Announced                                                              President

 26 -09-2018                                                   District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                Jammu.

 

Ms.Vijay Angral          

Member         

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan,

Member