Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/153/2017

ROHIT CHANDAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASUS INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

SUSHANT SAMNOTRA

22 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

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

                                                          .

 Case File  No                110/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution      14-07-2017

 Date of Decision            17-05-2018

 

Rohit Chandan,

S/O Sh.Kulwant Kumar,

R/O H.No.537 Sector 5,Shivalik Puram,

Janipur Colony,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                Complainant

                V/S

1.Asus India through its Managing Director,

402,4^th Floor Supreme Chambers 17/18,

Shah Industrial Estate,Veera Desai Road,

Andheri West,Mumbai,India-400058.

2.FLY FOT Mobile Store,

  M/S Atharav Enterprises,Gole Market,

Near Pahalwan Di Hatti,Gandhi Nagar,Jammu-180001.

3.FI Info Solutions & Services Pvt.Ltd.

 (Authorised Service Centre)168 A,Sector 1,

Chahal Complex,Near Vermanis Shopping Mall,

Railway Road,Nanak Nagar,Jamkmu-180004.

                                                                                                                                                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.Aditya Badyal,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Mohit Gupta,Advocate for OP1,present.

 Nemo for OPs 2&3.

                                                            ORDER

                                             Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint in hand are that complainant purchased an Asus Mobile Model  No.Zenfone Max ZC55OKL from Op2,on,04-08-2016,for sale consideration of Rs.13,500/-,(original bill is annexed as Annexure-A),but after few months of its purchase, the handset was marred by defects, like overheating, frequent restarting, slow processing and frequent hanging, complainant approached  service centre i.e.OP3 many times and every time the technical staff handed over the handset with an assurance that the handset will now work properly, but again after few days the handset started showing same defects(copy of job card dated 14-06-2017 is annexed as Annexure-B).Allegation of complainant is that though many times, the OP Company’s service centre had tried its level best to rectify the defects, but all in vain which clearly shows that the handset was having manufacturing defects. Further allegation of complainant is that he repeatedly approached OP3 for rectification of defects, but it failed to remove the defects, and same according to complainant constitutes deficiency in service, hence the present complaint. In the final analysis, complainant prays for refund of Rs.13,500/-(i.e. cost of handset) and in addition, prays for compensation to the tune of Rs.80, 000/-under different heads.

                  On the other hand,OP1 filed written version and while denying the allegations of complainant, went on to submit that complainant approached OP3 only once on,14-06-2017 vide Complaint No.INR5H60074 and has reported minor technical problems while using the handset and complained of the problem while using the handset and complained of the problems viz Restart problem, Hanging Issue & Heating, accordingly mobile unit of complainant was immediately examined by the service engineer of OP3 without any delay and was checked thoroughly and no defect was found in the handset. It is important to mention here that complainant after fully satisfied with the working of the handset and services carried out by the service engineer  of authorized Service center took the delivery of the handset. The OP 1 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.

                         In so far as OP,2&3 are concerned, despite notice did not take any action to represent their  case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period, provided under the Act. Thereafter, the right of the OP,2&3 to file reply was closed, vide order dated, 25-09-2017.

                          Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavit of Sumit Sadotra. Complainant has placed on record, copy of retail invoice and copy of job sheet.

            On the other hand,OP1 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit of Falguni Parekh,Senior Manager,Legal.

              We have perused case file and heard L/Cs appearing for the parties at length.

                    To be brief, allegation of complainant is that he purchased handset manufactured by OP1,but after few months from its purchase, handset was marred by defects,however,despite repeated requests,OPs failed to remove  the alleged defects. On the other hand,Op,2&3 despite service of notice, did not choose to defend themselves before the Forum,therefore,their right to file written version was closed vide order dated 25-09-2017.                  

                    In so far as, allegation of complainant regarding defects in the handset are concerned and failure of OP,2&3 to remove alleged defects, same went unchallenged from OP,2&3 side.

                 In support of his allegations, complainant filed his own duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Sumit Sadotra which are verbatim reproduction of contents of complaint,therefore,need no reiteration. Complainant has also placed on record copy of bill and copy of job card.            

               On the other hand, OP,2&3 despite being duly served, failed to take any action to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of the complainant or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by OP,2&3 in this complaint and there is also no evidence to rebut the case of the complainant. 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 Op2&3 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, of Act of 1987, clearly, provides that when OP,2&3 omits or fails to take any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                      From perusal of the documentary evidence and affidavit filed by complainant, it is found that complainant has succeeded in proving his case, against OP,2&3 despite making repeated requests, therefore, a case is made out by complainant for deficiency in service on the part of OP,2&3,in not redressing his grievance. From perusal of complaint, as well as, evidence affidavit of complainant  and his witness, we find that complainant has suffered unnecessarily as the handset was not made functional, as such the handset of the complainant suffered from manufacturing defect .

                  Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded in proving deficiency in service on the part of OPs.,as such,OP1 is directed to refund cost of handset to the tune of Rs.13,500/-to the complainant, who in turn returned the handset with all accessories to OPs. OP1 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation charges of Rs.3000/-to the complainant. The awarded amount be deposited by OP1 in this Forum within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Announced                                                 (Khalil Choudhary)                                         

 17-05-2018                                                (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

 Agreed by                                                      President                                                      

                                                                       (District Consumer Fourm)

Ms.Vijay Angral                                                 Jammu.

Member

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member