Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/764/2017

NIDHI PARIHAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG - Opp.Party(s)

GS GILL

08 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

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

                                                          .

 Case File  No                328/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution      03-12-2017

 Date of Decision         08-03-2018

 

Nidhi Parihar,

D/O Sh.Saran Singh,

R/o Top Sherkhania Near Temple.

                                                                                                                  Complainant

                          V/S

1.Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.

   Through its Managing Director,

  A-24 Ground Floor Front Tower,

  Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

   Delhi-110044.

2.Smart Care Services,

    Samsung Authorised Service Centre

    179 Shastri Nagar, Jammu.

3.A.M.Traders,Chhani Kamala,

    Marble Market,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.G.S.Gill,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Arvind Khajuria,Advocate for Ops 1&2,present.

Nemo for OP3.

 

                                                    ORDER

 

                         Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that complainant is said to have purchased one SAM N950 Mobile bearing IMEI No.352016090193509,on,21-09-2017,against sale consideration of Rs.67,900/-from OP3,copy of bill is annexed as Annexure-A.According to complainant, the handset functioned nicely for some time, but later on it developed Sensor problem resulting in automatic switch off, remained hanged for hours together and even its striker pen as also other features of the mobile remained non functional. She approached OP2 for replacement of striker pen and also for removal of defects occurred in the handset on,15-10-2017.Allegation of complainant is that after ten days i.e.on,25-10-2017,she approached OP2 for delivery of his repaired handset and the OP2 handed over the handset to her alongwith striker pen after removal of defects. Complainant further submitted that even after rectification of defects by OP2,the handset did not work properly, as such, she again approached OP2 for removal of defects occurred in the handset after five days of its repair. It is pertinent to state that the handset instead of showing improvement firstly starts heating and hanging and ultimately the handset turned dead. Allegation of complainant is that the handset has suffered damage due to inherent manufacturing defects within warranty period and the handset is still within the warranty period. 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 either replacement of handset or in the alternative  refund of cost of handset to the tune of Rs.67,900/-and in addition, also prays for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-and Rs.25,000/-as litigation charges.

                  On the other hand,Ops 1&2 have filed written version and while denying the allegations of complainant, went on to submit that the handset purchased by the complainant absolutely did not have any problem, but as per complaint, complainant approached service centre regularly for the reason that  her mobile unit and striker pen creates minor technical problems and every times service centre assured that her unit was rectified. It is important to state that as per record the  complainant did not approach any of authorized service centre i.e.OP2. The 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 OP,therefore,complaint is misconceived and liable to the dismissed.

                    Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn her own affidavit and affidavit of Puneet Singh Jamwal. Complainant has placed on record, copy of retail invoice.

                   On the other hand,Ops 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.

                   To be brief, grievance of complainant is that she purchased a one SAM N950 G950 ,on,21-09-2017,against sale consideration of Rs.67,900/-but ,within warranty period, same was marred by defects. Further allegation of complainant is that despite she approached OP2(i.e.authorised service centre),but OP2 failed to rectify the defects, which were manufacturing defects in nature.

                    On the other hand, OPs,while denying the allegations of complainant in toto,went onto submit that handset has been duly rectified by service engineer of OPs,therefore,allegations of complainant are unfounded and are designed to extract money.

                        In order to support her allegations, complainant has filed duly sworn her own affidavit and affidavit of Puneet Singh Jamwal. At the same time, complainant also produced bill dated 21-09-2017 for sum of Rs.67,900/-.

                     The complaint is fully supported by the affidavit of complainant and the affidavit of Puneet Singh Jamwal, so in the given circumstances of the case, and in view of evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments made by complainant in complaint.

                 From perusal of averments contained in the complaint, 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 her grievance is allowed and Ops are jointly and severally directed to refund cost of handset to the tune of Rs.67,900/- to complainant, who shall return the mobile phone, alongwith accessories to the opposite parties. The Ops shall comply the order jointly and severally, within six weeks, from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to parties, free of costs. 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

 08 -03-2018                                                   District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                Jammu.

 

Ms.Vijay Angral          

Member        

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan,

Member