Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/40/2017

Purshotam sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syntech technologies - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Sharma

31 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT    CONSUMER     DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM, JAMMU

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

                                                         

 Case File  No.               75/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution   :  01-06-2017

 Date of Decision      :    09 -03-2018

 

Purshotam Sharma,

S/O Raman Kumar,

R/O Jandrah,Tehsil Dansal,

Distt.Jammu.

                                                                                                                                    Complainant

                     V/s
1.  Syntech Techlonogy Pvt.Ltd.

   F-2,Block No.B-1,Ground Floor,

  Mohan Cooperative Industrial estate,

  Mathura Road,New Delhi-110044.

2.Maa Enterprises 7-A Karan Market,

    Jammu.

3.Gionee Sai Enterprises,,

   167 A/B Ist Floor, Railway Road,

   Nanak 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.Vinod Kumar Sharma,Advocate for complainant, present.

     Nemo for OPs.

 

 

                                                                     ORDER

 

                              Grievance of complainant lies in short compass, in that according to complainant on,02-06-2016,he purchased one Gionee MS LITE GOLDEN  Mobile phone  bearing IMEI No.869328020834482 & 869328020834490  from OP2 for sum of Rs.13,000/-manufactured by Op1 (copy of bill Annexure-C1). That at the time of purchase of handset, it was assured and made clear to him that the GIONEE products carry universal warranty of one year from the date of purchase, but in the month of March, April,2017 the handset starting making trouble and speaker voice, ringtone voice was not working and some other problems which forced him to approach OP3 and OP3 retained the handset with him on the pretext that the handset needed to be repaired under observations and returned the handset after few days, but the handset was not repaired. According to complainant he used the handset for a day and again the same problem persisted. Thereafter, complainant said to have requested OP3 to replace defective handset, as the handset was suffering from manufacturing defects, but OP3 refused to get the phone repaired and replaced. 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.13,000/-and in addition, also prays for compensation of Rs.10,000/-and Rs.5,000/-as litigation charges.

                    Notices alongwith copies of complaint were sent to OPs through registered cover,however,despite lapse of statutory period,OPs did not take any action to represent their case before the Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same, within stipulated period, provided under the Act.

            Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavit of Aryavir Singh. Complainant has placed on record copy of job sheet and  copy of job sheet.

               We have perused case file and heard L/C appearing for complainant at length.

                      Briefly stated grievance of complainant is that on, 02-06-2016,he purchased one Gionee MS LITE GOLDEN  Mobile phone  bearing IMEI No.869328020834482 & 869328020834490  from OP2 for sum of Rs.13,000/-manufactured by Op1. That at the time of purchase of handset, it was assured and made clear to him that the GIONEE products carry universal warranty of one year from the date of purchase, but in the month of March, April,2017 the handset starting making trouble and speaker voice, ringtone voice was not working and some other problems which forced him to approach OP3 and OP3 retained the handset with him on the pretext that the handset needed to be repaired under observations and returned the handset after few days, but the handset was not repaired. According to complainant he used the handset for a day and again the same problem persisted. Thereafter, complainant said to have requested OP3 to replace defective handset, as the handset was suffering from manufacturing defects, but OP3 refused to get the phone repaired and replaced. Complainant also submits that neither defects have been removed by Ops, nor redressed his grievance, which according to complainant constitutes deficiency in service.

            In order to substantiate his allegations, complainant filed his own duly sworn affidavit and affidavit of Aryavir Singh.The deposition of witness is corroborative of allegations contained in the complaint,therefore,need no reiteration. In addition, complainant has also produced copy of bill and copy of job sheet. From perusal of complaint, documentary and other evidence produced by the complainant, it appears that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case as narrated by him in the complaint. So, in the given circumstances of the case, and in view of documentary evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments contained in complaint. This is a case of deficiency in service. The OPs despite service of notices, sent by the Forum through registered cover have not taken any action to represent their case before this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant, or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by the OPs in this complaint and there is also no evidence in rebuttal. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 2(b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, which provides that in a case, where the OPs omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation, the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-clause (ii) of the Section 11, clearly provides that even where the OPs omits or fails to taken any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                 Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and Ops are directed to refund Rs.13,000/-(ie. the cost of handset) to complainant. Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.5000/-for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.3000/-, respectively. The OPs 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)

                                                                                  President

Announced                                                     District Consumer Forum

09-03-2018                                                             Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                               

      

Ms.Vijay Angral          

 Member                                                                                              

.               

 Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

 Member