Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/277/2018

VISHAL TAROCH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG - Opp.Party(s)

ARVIND KHAJURIA

24 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

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

                                                          .

 Case File No.             :   119/DFJ                

 Date of  Institution   : 12-07-2018                   

 Date of Decision       :  23-10-2018

 

Vishal Taroch,

S/O Sh.Rajinder Singh,

R/O Toph Sherkhania,

Ram Sharnam Ashram Road,

Near Sharma Sweet Shop,Paloura,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, F 696,First Floor,

        K.K.Complex New Plot,Jammu.

3.M/S Bhushan Radios, through its Proprietor,

Opposite Petrol Pump Below Gumat,Jammu.  

  

                                      Opposite parties

CORAM:-

                  Khalil Choudhary              (Distt.& Sessions Judge)  President

                  Ms.Vijay Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                                      Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

  

Rajni Gupta,Advocate for complainant, present.

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

Nemo for OP3.

                                                       

                                                                  ORDER

 

                         Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are thatcomplainant is said to have purchased a  Samsung mobile phone having Model No.Galaxy J7 Prime(32 GB)on,17-07-2017,against sale consideration of Rs.15,500/-from OP3copy of bill is annexed as Annexure-A)According to complainant, in the first week of July,2018 the handset started giving problem of auto off and hang while charging and many times the phone is hanged, complainant approached OP3,who instructed him to approach Authorized Service Centre of Samsung,therefore,complainant approached OP2 for rectification of defects in the handset. That since the handset purchased by the complainant was well within warranty period,therefore,complainant’s brother,namely,Sahil Taroch approached OP2 on,09-07-2018 and requested OP2 to remove aforesaid defects(copy of job card is annexed as Annexure-B).Complainant further submitted that the technicians/engineers of OP2 asked his brother that the said handset occur some software problem and software is required to be installed. Subsequently the technicians/engineers of OP2 told his brother to come on some day and on the same date technicians/engineers of OP2 handedover the handset to his brother and told him that the defect has been removed, but again when his brother received a call it was found that the said handset was again hanged and has not working properly and further the said handset again starts the problem of auto off while charging many a time,therefore,o,11-07-2018 his brother again took the handset to OP2 and requested OP2 to remove the defects  and on the request of his brother OP2 asked him to sit for two hours. The complainant requested the engineers of OP2 to give job card in this regard, but they refused to give any job card. Allegation of complainant is that he repeatedly approached OP2 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 Rs15,500and 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 has not only miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault, but also has not placed on record any analysis test report. It is submitted that as per record the information supplied by OP2 i.e.authorised service centre of OP1 complainant approached OP2 on, 09/07/2018 and has reported problem i.e.sometime charging time phone on off and hanging issue,accordingly mobile unit of complainant was immediately examined by the service engineer of OP2  without any delay and and was checked thoroughly,thererafter the employee of OP2 found some external problem in the handset in question, but being a valuable customer the OPs immediately replaced the charging jack and Tape of the handset, accordingly the unit in question was handed over to complainant and after fully satisfied with the w3ork carried by the service Engineer of service centre and took the delivery of the handset. However, such kind of minor external 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 &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 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 this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that failure of Ops 1&2 to redress the grievance of complainant amounts to deficiency in service on their part,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, on 17-07-2017,whereas,complainant for the first time approached OP3, with the complaint, on,09-07-2018,i.e.after making use of handset  for about twelve months. 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 twelve months, definitely its present value can by no stretch of imagination, still would be Rs.15,500/therefore, we proposed to settle complaint for sum of Rs.11,700/-,inclusive  all heads.

                In the afore quoted back drop, complaint is allowed and Ops 1&2 are directed to refund consolidated  sum of  Rs.11,700/-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)

23-10-2018                                                               President

                                                                            District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                 Jammu.

                                                                                 

Ms.Vijay Angral          

Member

                                                                                              

       Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

       Member