Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/17/2018

SUNIL SETHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG - Opp.Party(s)

SHEVAIT KHAJURIA

08 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

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

                                                          .

 Case File  No               363/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution      16-12-2017

 Date of Decision          09-03-2018

 

Sh.Sunil Sethi,

S/O Sh.R.P. Sethi,

R/o 1-Maheshpura,Jammu.

                                                                                                                    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.

  

                                                                                                                                    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.Mohit Kumar,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Arvind Khajuria,Advocate for Ops,present.

 

                                                      ORDER

 

                         Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are thatcomplainant is said to have purchased a Samsung Mobile phone Galaxy G950 Black,on,01-08-2017,against sale consideration of Rs.57,900/-.According to complainant, from the very first day of purchase, the handset was not functioning properly and was having connectivity problems, both voice and data, besides the colours of the screen also showed unusual patterns ,besides the above complications, the handset used to heat up abnormally and getting switched off automatically. Complainant further submitted that in the last week of November,2017 the handset started overheating and the complainant put his handset on the table within 5 minutes in presence of his friends, the screen of the handset cracked without any use, complainant immediately showed the handset to Samsung Service Centre and narrated the whole story to technician, but the technician at the authorized service centre after examining the handset told him that the handset can be repaired at the expenses of complainant and is treated to out of warranty. Allegation of complainant is that the handset has suffered damage due to inherent manufacturing defects during 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 refund of cost of handset to the tune of Rs.57,900/-and in addition, also prays for compensation of Rs.20,000/-and Rs.15,000/-as litigation charges.

                  On the other hand,Ops 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  his mobile unit creates minor technical problems and every times service centre assured that his 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 his own affidavit.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 he purchased a Samsung Mobile phone Galaxy G950 Black,on,01-08-2017,against sale consideration of Rs.57,900/-but ,within warranty period, same was marred by defects. Further allegation of complainant is that despite he 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 his allegations, complainant has filed duly sworn his own affidavit. At the same time, complainant also produced bill dated 01-08-2017 for sum of Rs.57,900/-.

                     The complaint is fully supported by the affidavit of complainant, 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 his grievance is allowed and Ops are jointly and severally directed to refund cost of handset to the tune of Rs.57,900/- 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

 09 -03-2018                                                   District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                Jammu.

 

Ms.Vijay Angral          

Member        

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan,

Member