Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/125/2018

RAVINDER KOUL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG - Opp.Party(s)

ZA QUAZI

21 Jul 2018

ORDER

       DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

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

                                                          .

 Case File  No                496/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution      23-03-2018

 Date of Decision         20-07-2018

 

Ravinder Koul,

S/O Late Sh.P.N.Koul,

R/O H.No.504-A 4^th Floor,

Tawi Apartments,Sidhra,Jammu

Presently practicing as an Advocate,

J&K Hon’ble High Court & Ors,

Subordinate Courts at Jammu.

                                                                                                                                Complainant

             V/S

Chairman & Managing Director,

Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.

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

Golf Course Rd.Sec 43,DLF Ph.V Gurugram,

Haryana-122202.

                                                                                                                                                Opposite party

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.Z.A.Qazi,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Arvind Khajuria,Advocate for OP,present.

 

 

                                                ORDER

                        Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint in hand are that: complainant is said to have purchased Samsung handset Gt-19192-Black vide IMEI No.357965056546354 vide invoice No.CS13/3125 Tin No.01081031152  on,28-02-2014, for sale consideration of Rs.23,500/-from M/S Samsung Smart Cafe M/S Eha Mobile World, Adjoining Central Bank of India,Indra Mension Shalamar Road, Jammu, copy of invoice is annexed as (Annexure-A),however, handset is said to have been marred by defects and on checking by OPs Service Centre ,it was informed that mother board of set had developed malfunction which need to be replaced for which repair charges were assessed at Rs.6700/-(Copy of estimate is annexed as Annexure-B). The complainant further submitted that since the OP has assured about sufficient durability of the product, the defective mother board after just few years of use was not palatable to him. A series of mail exchanges took place between the parties, but of no avail. The OP took the stand that electronic part had no guarantee notwithstanding the same being heavily priced. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP,complainant seeks direction to OP for refund of cost of handset and in addition, also prays for compensation of Rs.35,000/-including litigation charges.

                  On the other hand,OP has filed written version and while denying the allegations of complainant, went on to submit that complainant approached OP service centre  and has reported problem and complained of the problem viz (OW) Dead Mobile Issue, accordingly mobile unit of the complainant was immediately examined by the service engineer of service centre without any delay and was checked thoroughly thereafter the employee of service centre given the estimated cost of the PBA  i.e. part of mobile, but the complainant does not wish to pay the charges for the replacement or the motherboard, but the said call as cancelled & estimate not proved by the complainant for the reason best known to him and took the delivery of the handset. It is pertinent to mention here that the mobile unit in question of the complainant was purchased in February,2014 ,its two year old unit which clearly shows that the unit in question of complainant is out of warranty. It is important to state here that the complainant was attended on every visit. The OP 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. Complainant has placed on record, copy of retail invoice, and copies of job cards.

                   On the other hand,OP adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit of Rahul Bamba 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 OP, in failing to provide after sale service.

                 Heard L/C for the complainant. Perused the complaint of the complainant, written version and considered the evidence affidavits and other documentary material on record. Perusal of documentary evidence would discern that the product with make and model of Samsung India is purchased by the complainant for an amount of Rs.23,500/-contained in annexure-A.The evidence would divulge that after a period of time,the product suffered some internal defects and complainant approached the service centre of OP where upon the product of the complainant after superficial inspection without properly repairing. Perusal would also divulge that the complainant repeatedly visited the service centre of OP to redress his grievances/refund the price paid, but all in vain, thus it would emerge that OP/ the manufacturer, as well as, their service centre failed to execute necessary repair in the product supra and also failed to refund the amount paid for purchasing the product as the complainant fail on all fronts to seek the service/refund from the OP, he lodged this complaint. It would discern that in attentive and inappropriate action of OP has caused affliction upon the complainant beside harassment and financial loss as a corollary OP has failed to discharge their obligation to  render sufficient service to the complainant and thus such action on the part of OP tantamount                                                                    to the deficiency in service, therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion,OP is held guilty of deficiency in service it is acknowledged that due to such act of the OP,the complainant has suffered mental pain, agony, harassment and financial loss.

                 In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that failure of OP to redress the grievance of complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP,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, for an amount of Rs.23,500/-,whereas, complainant approached the service centre of OP number of times ,since he purchased the handset in question, but at last  the service centre of OP has refused to repair the handset of the complainant. It is a matter of common knowledge that electronic items, particularly electronic gadgets like in hand, after some time are sold on reduced price. Likewise, complainant used handset for sufficient period, definitely its present value can by no stretch of imagination, still would be Rs.23,500/-,therefore, we proposed to settle complaint for sum of Rs.17,000/-,inclusive  all heads.

                In the afore quoted back drop, complaint is allowed and OP is directed to refund consolidated of  sum of  Rs.17,000/-to complainant, who shall return the defective handset alongwith accessories to OP.The OP 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)

20-07-2018                                                               President

                                                                            District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                 Jammu.

                                                                                

Ms.Vijay Angral          

Member

                                                                                              

       Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

       Member