Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/8/2018

ISHAN CHOUDHARY - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG - Opp.Party(s)

MOHIT KUMAR

16 Feb 2018

ORDER

              DISTRICT    CONSUMER     DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM  JAMMU

           (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act 1987)

                                                         

 Case File  No                 327/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution     02.12.2017

 Date of Decision          16.02.2018

 

 

Ishan Choudhary

S/O  Late Sh.Vijay Bhushan Choudhary

R/O Channi Himmat Jammu.

                                                                                                                           Complainant

 

    1.  Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd

                Through its Managing Director

    A-24 Ground Floor Front Tower Mohan Co-operative

    Industrial Estate New Delhi-110044.

2.A.R Electronics Samsung Service Centre

             Ist Floor  K.K.Complex New Plots Jammu.

         3.Smart Care Services Samsung Authorised

            Service Centre 179 Shastri Nagar Jammu-180004.

 

 

                                                                                                                                      Opposite parties

CORAM

                  Khalil Chaudhary    (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.Mohit Kumar Advocate for complainant present.

Mr.Arvind Khajuria Advocate for OPs present.

           

 

                                                                                      ORDER.

 

                      Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that complainant said to have purchased  brand new dual sim handset Samsung Galaxy A710 Gold A7(6) on 12/10/2016 for sale consideration of Rs.26900/with one year warranty. According to complainant after a few months of its use the said handset started developing many complications and the network of handset became bad to worst and the handset used to show full network coverage but neither calls could be made nor received and the handset showed emergency calls only. That in the month of March2017 the handset started overheating without any use and it was not possible to hold the handset in his hand or even keep in his pocket because of hearting and the complainant finally showed his handset to authorized service centre at New Plots Jammu first time in the last week of April 2017 who in turn asked him to wait for some time while they will check the handset of complainant and the complainant waited for more than a hour and the handset was returned to him only after changing the settings and he was told that they tried to change the software of the mobile but it could not be done and told him to come again. Complainant further submitted that the handset did not show any improvement and finally the handset became totally non functional and started to hang for hours while picking up incoming calls and later the display used to to blank with the mobile neither switched off or on and every time the battery of the handset is to be removed and it had to be restarted, besides the internet also stopped working thereby leaving it as an ordinary mobile. That in the month of July 2017 while he was holding his handset it became so hot that the complainant placed it on the table in front of him and after 2/3 minutes the back side glass of the handset cracked on its own to the utter dismay of the complainant and thereafter the complainant apprehending damage physical damage to his person stopped using the handset. Complainant further submitted that he again visited authorized service centre on 04/08/2017 and showed his handset to them. The technician at the authorized service centre after examining the handset told him that since the back glass of the mobile is broken it is not covered under the warranty. The complainant tried to convince them that the back glass has cracked on its own while lying untouched on the table because of overheating so much so the complainant requested the technician to examine it thoroughly and he will find that there is no mark or sing of any fall on the mobile and the way the glass has cracked. it is not possible because of a fall. A bare look of the mobile show that the cracks are in such a pattern that it is not possible with a fall however the technician failed to examine the set logically and kept on insisting that in case the complainant wants to get the mobile repaired the same shall be repaired as out of warranty at the cost of complainant. Complainant further submitted that the handset has stopped working on the 4g network and completely fails to start the internet and all the defects pointed out in the handset are inherent manufacturing defects cropped up during the warranty period so much so he handset is still within the warranty period. Constrained by the acts of Ops complainant served legal notice to OP1.but the legal notice did not yield any fruitful result. Hence the present complaint.Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops complainant seeks direction to Ops for refund of cost of handset to the tune of Rs.26900/ and in addition also prays for compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10000/.

                               On the other hand Ops filed written version and while denying the allegations of complainant went on to submit that the present complaint alleges manufacturing defect in the product. It is pertinent to mention here that alleged defect cannot be determined on the simplicitor submissions of the 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. The Ops further submitted that the mobile unit was purchased by the complainant is almost 1 year old mobile unit. The mobile purchased by the complainant absolutely did not have any problem but as per complaint the complainant approached the service centre regularly for the reason his mobile unit creates minor technical problems and every times service center assured that his unit was rectified. It is important to state here that as per our record complainant had never approached any of the authorized service centre i.e.OP2 and Op3  Ops 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 Ops therefore complaint is misconceived and liable to the dismissed.

                           Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit and affidavit of Hasit Kumar. Complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice and copy of legal notice.

                  On the other hand  OP1&3 adduced evidence affidavit of Joginder Paul alias Rajesh Paul Mobile Service Engineer Jammu.

                  We have perused case file and heard L/Cs for 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 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.

                        However, on the other hand complainant filed his own duly sworn evidence affidavit. On the other hand Ops did not support their defence by any expert report therefore mere testimony of its service engineer short of any expert report loses its probative value and cannot be relied upon because complainant supported his complaint with his affidavit . Therefore it appears Ops 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 constitutes grave deficiency in service therefore same calls for interference.

                               Therefore in view of aforesaid discussion we are of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded in proving deficiency in service on the part of Ops as such Ops are directed to refund cost of handset to the tune of Rs.26900/ to the  complainant who shall return the defective handset alongwith accessories to Ops.The Ops shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation

Order per President                                              Khalil Chaudhary

Announced                                                           (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

16/02/2018                                                               President

                                                                            District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                 Jammu.

                                                               

  Ms.Vijay Angral          

  Member                                                                                              

.               

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member