Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/76/2018

TARVINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG - Opp.Party(s)

ANUJ KHULLAR

04 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

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

                                                          .

 Case File  No                 422/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution       25-01-2018

 Date of Decision            30- 06-2018

Tarvinder Singh,

S/O Sh.Kuljeet Singh,

R/O H.No.49 Ajit Nagar,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                                Complainant

                 V/S

1.Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.

   Through its Managing Director,

   A-25 Ground Floor Front Tower,

   Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

   Delhi-110044.

2.M/S Kay Tee Rhythms,

    434/A Sawhney Stop,Gandhi Nagar,

    Jammu.

3.  Smart Care Service ,

     179 Shastri Nagar,

   Jammu-180004.

                                                                                                                                      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.Anuj Khullar,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Arvind Khajuria,Advocate for Ops 1&3,present.

Nemo for OP2.

 

                                                        ORDER

 

                         Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that one Sh.Varun Kumar has purchased Samsung Mobile from OP2,on,27-02-2017,against sale consideration of Rs.50,900/-,while purchasing the handset from OP2 warranty card was also provided which categorically lays down the terms and conditions of warranty ,thereafter Sh.Varun Kumar has sold the handset in a proper working condition to him in the month of June,2017(copy of bill is annexed as Annexure-A).According to complainant, right from the day of purchase of handset it didn’t work properly. number of times it got hanged and due to this he had suffer a lot for which he approached OP2,but he told that hanging sometime happens in the handset, it will be alright after sometime, but even after lapse of sometime the problem of hanging didn’t get cured. Allegation of complainant is that in the month of June,2017 the volume key of the handset not working properly on its own and immediately thereafter complainant approached OP2 and apprised him about the problem of volume key and then OP2 apprised him to rush to the service centre i.e.OP3 and resolve the problem of volume key. Complainant went to OP3 and narrated the whole story and requested to check the handset and solve the hanging problem, as well as, volume key problem (copy of job card is annexed as Annexure-B).Complainant further submitted that on,01-01-2018 complainant left his handset on charging with the original charger which was provided by the company under the name and brand as Samsung, but when he after 15 minutes of charging picked the phone to make a call, the handset caught fire and the charger of the phone, as well caught fire causing damage to the phone, as well as, to the charger and a burned injury was sustained in the left hand of complainant, he immediately approached OP3 and handed over the handset to OP3 for proper perusal of the problem(copy of job card is annexed as Annexure-C). Allegation of complainant is that he has been cheated by the Ops by selling defective handset and thereafter causing harassment and had made to suffer from pillar to post for getting his handset repaired from the service centre. 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 compensation of Rs.5.25 lacs including litigation charges.

                        On the other hand,Ops 1&3 have filed written version and while denying the allegations of complainant, went on to submit that the mobile phone was originally purchased by one Varun Kumar alongwith warranty conditions, in which it is clearly mentioned that the warranty is confined to the first purchaser of the product. It is further submitted that the unit in question was out of warranty for the reason that the warranty confined to first purchaser and it is not extendable to the second purchaser and this fact is admitted by the complainant in para 1 of the complaint that he purchased the unit from Varun Kumar.It is further submitted that complainant approached OP3 i.e. service centre and has reported problem while using the handset and complained of the problem i.e. LCD Break, volume key NT working Issues, accordingly mobile handset of complainant was immediately examined by the service engineer of OP3 without any delay and was checked thoroughly and found that the LCD of the unit in question was broken and accordingly the LCD of the complainant unit was replaced on payment basis for the reason the unit in question was out of warranty and secondly due to external damaged unit and the handset was handed over to him and only after fully satisfied with the work carried out by the service engineer  and took the delivery of the mobile set. It is submitted that complainant approached OP3 on 27-06-2017 and has reported problem while using the handset and complained of the problem viz Volume Key NT Working Issues, accordingly mobile unit of the complainant was immediately examined by the service engineer of OP3 without any delay and was checked thoroughly, and found that some problem was occurred in the unit and accordingly the PBA,Camera and B/Glass Tape of unit was replaced and the handset was handed over to him only after fully satisfied with the work carried out by the service engineer of service centre & took the delivery of the handset. However, such kind of minor technical problems generally occur due to mishandling of the unit, as such the Ops have not committed any negligence or deficiency in service. The Ops 1 &3 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 and affidavit of Gurpreet Singh. Complainant has placed on record, copy of affidavit of Varun,copy of  retail invoice, copy of job card and copy of letter issued by Authorised Samsung Service Centre.

                      On the other hand,OP1&3 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.

                 After hearing L/Cs for parties and perusing the case file, the point for consideration is, as to whether or not Ops are deficient in service in not redressing the grievance of complainant.

                      Before heading further, it is to be noted that since parties have lead evidence in the shape of evidence affidavits, which are much or less reproduction of contents of their respective pleadings,therefore,we do not feel it necessary to represent the same again and if need arises, same would be referred hereinafter at appropriate stage.

              L/C for OPs vehemently argued that the unit in question was out of warranty for the reason that the warranty confined to the first purchaser only and it is not extendable to the second purchaser and this fact is admitted by the complainant himself in para 1 of the complaint that he purchased the handset from Varun Kumar who was first purchaser.

                       L/C for OPs placed reliance on the judgment passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana in case titled Bhagwan Singh Shekhawat V/S M/S R.K.Photostate & Communication in Revision Petition No.4089 of 2012 wherein it has been held as:

   Revision    Petition- The Complainant/Petitioner purchased mobile set of Motorola for Rs.8,000/-from OP No.1/Respondent No.1 and OP No.2 & 3/Respondent No.2&3 are service provider. The complainant found that mobile set was not working properly due to manufacturing defect-no expert opinion regarding defects in mobile set has been placed by complainant on record. Perusal of job card reveals that there was display problem meaning thereby, this problem occurred after more than 6 months. In next job card complainant disclosed problem of ringer and key pad meaning thereby, there was no display problem at that time. In next job card again complainant disclosed ringer problem. The problems can arise while regular use of mobile and as ringer problem arose after almost 11 months, it cannot be said that there was any manufacturing defect particularly in the absence of expert opinion-The Court did not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.

            It is well settled in law that a person who alleges a defect has to prove the same. In our opinion, the submission of L/C for OPs is fully justified. If the mobile had manufacturing defect, it was for the complainant to prove the same.

Still while considering to the averments and the evidence put on record it will not be adviseable for the Forum to over throw the claim of complainant as being not supported with such kind of documentary proof because the Forum is while dealing with the Consumer related matters have to act with more sense ofresponsibility and not to turn down the claim on mere technicalities as it would run against the basic essence of the scheme underlying the legislation holding the field. Accordingly, the Forum is of the considered view that the complainant has got a case where he is seeking redressal of his grievance and could be better redressed that if he is directed to approach OP3 with the unit alongwith all the accessories for proper check up and who shall rectify the defect if any in the said unit free of costs within a period of one month, positively from today.Let copy of this order be served to both the parties for their compliance. No other kind of relief is found fit and proper in the case. However, in the facts and circumstances of the matter parties are left to bear their own costs. File after its due compilation be consigned to records

 

Order per President                                                 (Khalil Choudhary)                                

 

                                                                               (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                                       President

Announced                                                           District Consumer Forum

 30-06-2018                                                               Jammu.

                                                                                      

Agreed by                                                                

                                                                              

Ms.Vijay Angral          

  Member                                                                                                                                                               

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member