Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/762/2017

YOGESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG - Opp.Party(s)

AKASH GUPTA

03 Mar 2018

ORDER

        DISTRICT    CONSUMER     DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM, JAMMU

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

                                                         

 Case File  No                325/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution     29-11-2017

 Date of Decision          19 -02-2018

 

Yogesh Kumar,

S/O Sh.Satpal,

R/O Near Twawish B.ed College,

Channi Rama,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                Complainant

          V/S

1.Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.

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

 Golf Course Road,Sector 43 DLF PH-V,

 Gurgaon Haryana-122202

2.M/S .A.R.Electronic F-696 First Floor

  KK Complex,New Plot,Jammu-180005.

2.M/S Bhushan Radios Opposite Petrol Pump,

    Below Gumat,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.Akash Gupta,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Arvind Khajuria,Advocate for OP1&2,present.

Nemo for OP 3.

 

                                                      ORDER

 

                         Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that complainant is said to have purchased Mobile handset of Samsung Company bearing model No.J210 Samsung Galaxy J2 PRO a Dual Sim from OP3),on,26-04-2017, against sale consideration of Rs.9,800/-however, handset alleged to have been marred by defects within warranty period and same was taken to OP2,repeatedly, but it failed to remove the defects, and same, according to complainant were manufacturing in nature, therefore, in the final analysis, for deficiency in service, complainant prays for refund of cost of handset  and in addition, prays for compensation under different heads to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/-

                  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 and has reported problem while using the handset and complained of the problem viz Power Key Not Working Issue, accordingly mobile unit of complainant was immediately examined by the service engineer of service centre without any delay and was checked thoroughly and no defect was found in the handset, but as a valuable customer and on the request of complainant the PBA of the complainant unit was replaced and the handset was handed over to him and only after fully satisfied with the work carried out by the service engineer  of Service center and took the delivery of the mobile set.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 &2further 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, copy of customer information slip and copies of job cards.

            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 for removal of alleged defects,however,Ops 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 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&3 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 26-04-2017,whereas,complainant for the first time approached OP2, with the complaint, on,19-07-2017,i.e after making use of handset  for about three 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 three months, definitely its present value can by no stretch of imagination, still would be Rs.9,800/-,therefore, we proposed to settle complaint for sum of Rs.8,500/-,inclusive  all heads.

                In the afore quoted back drop, complaint is allowed and Ops 1&2 are directed to refund consolidated sum of Rs.8500/-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

                                                                         (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

Announced                                                              President

19-02-2018                                                      District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                Jammu.

 

Ms.Vijay Angral          

Member                                                                                               

  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

 Member