Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/680/2017

KARUNA RAJU - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIVO MOBILES - Opp.Party(s)

GAGANDEEP SHARMA

06 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT    CONSUMER     DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM, JAMMU

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

                                                         

 Case File  No               252/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution     10-10-2017

 Date of Decision         24 -09-2018

 

Karuna Raju,

W/O Sh.Arjun Singh Raju,

R/O  Upper Roop Nagar,Jammu(A/P).

                                                                                                                                Complainant

                     V/S

1.Vivo Mobiles India Pvt.Ltd.

  Plot No.54 Third Floor Delta Tower,

Sector-44,Gurugram Haryana-122003.

2.Vivo Service Centre,Ist Floor Opposite

 Samsung Showroom Apsara Road

Gandhi Nagar,Jammu through Incharge/Manager.

3.Swastik Electronics 36 Ranbir Market,Jammu-180001.

                                                                                                                                                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.Gagandeep  Sharma,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Neeraj Gupta,Advocate for Ops,1&2,present.

Nemo for OP3.

                                                       

                                                                  ORDER

 

                         Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that; complainant is said to have purchased a of Vivo Company having IMEI No.862852030784558,against sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- but after few days of the purchase the handset, it started showing problems defective touch, defective  speaker phones,heating,defective mike and hanging. According to complainant, he approached service centre and availed the services of service centre situated at Gandhi Nagar under the control of OP2 for three times, but it was no use and they failed to resolve the problem in the handset. Sometimes they had no software, sometime they were busy and sometimes they say that the handset’s software is old and does not support the system and will be slow in future. Each and every time they washed all the data and contacts which troubled in her client’s, social links, she insisted for a permanent solution, but the service centre did not register their complaint and resolved the problem temporarily. Allegation of complainant is that the handset is still within warranty period and the service centre of the company has failed to repair the handset. Complainant also submits that neither defects have been removed by Ops, nor redressed her grievance, which according to complainant constitutes deficiency in service,therefore,prays for refund of cost of handset to the tune of Rs.20,000/-with interest @ 13% from the date of purchase and in addition, also prays for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-including litigation charges.

            On the other hand,OP1&2  filed written version and resisted the complaint on the ground that complainant has mysteriously chosen not to reveal the date of his so called visit which goes onto show that the complainant never visited the service centre. The fact of the matter is that after purchase of the mobile for the last eleven months and 29 days, complainant never visited the service centre of OP and chooses to file false and frivolous complaint against the OP.A copy of the record of the service centre which shows about the customer visit or repairing of the handset of complainant is enclosed herewith .That the allegation of so called for not entering in the register and acted arbitrarily are also fabricated and completely denied. Rest of the contents of complaint are denied.

              Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence and affidavit of Arjun Singh Raju.Complainant has placed on record of retail invoice.

           On the other hand,OP1&2 adduced evidence by way  of duly sworn evidence affidavit of Arjun Singh Authorised Signatory M/S Vivo Mobile India Pvt.Ltd.OP1&2 have placed on record copy of record of the service centre.

           We have perused case file and heard L/Cs 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 after purchase of the handset for the last eleven months and 29 days, complainant never visited the service centre of OPs.                   

               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 OPs 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

 24-09-2018                                                               Jammu.

                                                                                      

Agreed by                                                                

                                                                              

Ms.Vijay Angral          

  Member                                                                                                                                                               

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member