View 5090 Cases Against Samsung
View 5090 Cases Against Samsung
PARMEET SINGH filed a consumer case on 16 Feb 2018 against SAMSUNG in the Jammu Consumer Court. The case no is CC/22/2018 and the judgment uploaded on 17 Feb 2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM JAMMU
(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act 1987)
.
Case File No 366/DFJ
Date of Institution 19/12/2017
Date of Decision 16/02/2018
Parmeet Singh
S/O S.Manjeet Singh
R/O Akali Kour Singh Nagar
Digiana Jammu 180010.
Complainant
V/S
1. Samsung India
Through its Managing Director
(Regd.Office address 14th Floor
North Block RTechParkWestern Highway
Gurgaon(East)Mumbai-400068Maharashtra ).
2.Authorised Service Centre of Samsung
SmartCare Services179Shastri NagarJammu 180004.
3.Authorised Service Centre of Samsung Electronics
Jammu f696 First Floor K.K.Complex Opposite
Krishna Building New Plot Jammu 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.
M/S Gautam Vaid Advocate for complainant present.
Mr.Arvind Khajuria Advocate for Ops present.
ORDER
Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that complainant purchased a mobile Samsung On 7 Pro Nxt in Gold Colour through online from Amazon on 06-01-2017 for sale consideration of Rs.9990/copy of bill is annexed with the complaint. According to complainant within one month the handset developed some hanging problem and battery drainage problem he approached OP2 i.e.the local service centre of OP1 and apprised all grievance to their notice the concerned service centre update the software of the phone and assured that now you will not face the same problem in future. Allegation of complainant is that on on 15/11/2017 the handset started showing problems of auto restart while making calls most of the time call not received because touch not working properly hanging problem and battery drainage he approached OP2 for rectification of defects the Op2 kept the handset for about one day to carry out repair work and when complainant approached OP2 to inquire about his handset OP2 revealed that there is some hardware issue and the touch and battery has been replaced but no consent of complainant was taken before replacing the aforesaid part copy of acknowledgement is annexed as Annexure-B.Complainant further submitted that he repeatedly approached OP2 for rectification of defects 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.9990/ and in addition prays for compensation under different heads to the tune of Rs.55000/.
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 complainant has reported problem while using the handset and complained of the problems viz AUTO RESTART SOMETIME CALL NOT REDCEIVE AN TOUCH NOT WORKING PROPERLY auto restart hang and battery draining accordingly the mobile unit of the complainant was immediately examined by the service engineer of smart care service center OP2 vide dated 15/11/17 vide complaint No.429616061 without any delay and was checked thoroughly and no defect found in the unit and as a valuable customer and on the request of complainant the TOUCH BATTERY AND IFC REPLACE. It is further submitted that as per record complainant again approached OP3 on 06/12/2017 vide complaint No.4250890709 and has reported problem while using he handset and complained OF THE PROBLEMS VIZ auto restart hang and battery drainage, accordingly mobile unit of complainant was immediately examined by the service engineer of OP3 without any delay and was checked thoroughly & found some minor problem in the unit and immediately the same parts like BATTERY REPLACED as it is submitted that complainant after being satisfied with the work carried out by the service engineer of OP3 & took the delivery of mobile set. It is further submitted that Ops have provided after sale service in terms of warranty condition. 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 Ops therefore complaint is misconceived and liable to the dismissed.
In support of the complaint complainant has filed his own affidavit and affidavit of Sumit Rehan. Complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice and copies of job cards.
On the other hand OPs adduced evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Joginder Paul alias(Rajesh Paul).
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 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 Sumit Rehan. On the other handOps 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.9990/ 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 Choudhary
(Distt.& Sessions Judge)
Announced President
16/02/2018 District Consumer Forum
Agreed by Jammu.
Ms.Vijay Angral
Member
Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.