Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/256/2018

VARUN GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG - Opp.Party(s)

RUPIKA MAHAJAN

13 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT    CONSUMER     DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM, JAMMU

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

                                                         

 Case File  No.              96/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution   :  07-06-2018

 Date of Decision      :   19 -09-2018

 

Varun Gupta,

S/O Sh.Raj Kumar Gupta,

R/O H.No.444 3^rd Bridge,

Opposite  Shiv Mandir,

Shakti Nagar,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                Complainant

                   V/S

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.

Through its Managing Director,

Head Office:20^th to 24^th Floor,

Two Horizon Centre Gold Course Road,

       Sector 43 DLF PH-V,Gurgaon,Haryana-122202.

  2. A.R. Electronics, Authorised Service Centre,

       F 696,First Floor, K.K.Complex New Plot,Jammu.

   3.M/S Shivam Communication through its Prop.

      215-A Last Morh,Gandhi 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.

    Rupika Mahajan,Advocate for complainant, present.

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

                                                       

                                                                  ORDER

 

                         Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that; complainant is said to have purchased Samsung  mobile phone Model G615 Mix(32 GB) bearing IMEI No.358344082778762,on,22-07-2017,against sale consideration of Rs.17,900/-from OP3,(copy of bill is annexed as Annexure-A).According to complainant, in the last week of May,2018 the said handset started giving pro0blem of blank display and heat up and hanging problem, he approached OP3  who suggested him to approach Authorised Service Centre of Samsung,therefore,complainant approached OP2 for removal of defects in the handset. According to complainant since the handset purchased by the complainant was well within warranty period, he approached OP2 on,01-06-2018  and requested to remove the defect of phone heat up, hanging problem blank display problem (Annexure-B).Thereafter, the technicians/engineers of OP2 asked complainant that the said handset occur some software problem and software is required to be installed, subsequently the technicians/engineers of OP2 on,02-06-2018 handed over the handset to complainant and told him that the defect has been removed, but again when complainant received a call it was found that the said handset was again hanged and is not working properly and further the said phone again started the problem of blank display many times,therefore,on,03-06-2018 complainant again took defected handset to OP2 and requesterd OP2 to remove the defects and the OP2 asked him to leave the handset for one more day as there is some hardware problem in the said handset and the complainant requested the Engineers of OP2 to give job sheet and accordingly on,04-06-2018 complainant visited the office of OP2 and on the said date the handset was handed over to him and the engineers of OP2 assured him that the defects have been removed, but it is pertinent to mention here that at the time of receiving handset ,it has been heard by the complainant from the discussion of engineers of OP2 that there seems some manufacturing defect in the handset, therefore, complainant should not have much expectations with regard to removal of such manufacturing defect in the handset. Allegation of complainant is that he repeatedly approached OP3 for redresal of his grievance, but all in vain. Further allegation of complainant is that he has been cheated by the Ops firstly 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 refund of cost of handset to the tune of Rs.17,900/-and in addition, also prays for compensation of Rs.30,000/-including 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 complainant approached OP2,on,02-06-2018 and has reported problem like sometime display blank show,hanging and heating up issue,after using the handset in question more than 9 months,accordingly mobile unit of complainant was immediately examined by the service engineer of OP2 without any delay and was checked thoroughly and no defect was found in the handset, but only on the request of complainant software of the handset was updated and the handset was handed over to him and only after fully satisfied with the work carried out by the service engineer  of authorised.Service center and took the delivery of the mobile set.However,such kind of minor problems generally occurred due to mishandling of the unit, as such the Ops have not committed any negligence or deficiency in service. The Ops 1 &2 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 copy of job sheet.

            On the other hand,Ops 1&2 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 Ops, in failing to provide after sale service.

              Admittedly, complainant approached Ops 1&2 for removal of alleged defects,however,Ops 1&2 came up with the version that alleged defects were not covered under warranty. In support of alleged defence,Ops have filed evidence affidavit of  Rahul Bamba,Mobile Service engineer and testimony of witness of Ops 1&2 more or less is reproduction of contents of written version of Ops,therefore,same need no reiteration.

                  However, on the other hand, complainant filed his own duly sworn evidence affidavit .On the other hand,Ops 1&2 did not support their defence by any expert report, therefore, mere testimony of its service engineer short of any expert report looses its probative value and cannot be relied upon, because complainant supported his allegations by his own evidence affidavit . Therefore, it appears Ops 1&2 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 1&2, constitutes grave deficiency in service, therefore, same calls for interference.

                   In the afore quoted back drop, complaint is allowed and Ops 1&2 are directed to refund Rs.17,900/-(i.e.cost of handset)to complainant, who shall return the defective handset alongwith accessories to Ops 1&2.The Ops 1&2 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)

19-09-2018                                                               President

                                                                            District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                 Jammu.

                                                                                 

Ms.Vijay Angral          

Member

                                                                                              

       Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

       Member