Haryana

Karnal

CC/174/2015

Dr. Preeti Kalra W/o Dr. Nitin Kalra - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Karbonn Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

02 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.174 of 2015

                                                         Date of instt. 03.08.2015

                                                         Date of decision:02.02.2018

 

Dr. Preeti Kalra aged about 35 years, wife of Dr. Nitin Kalra, resident of 1232, sector-7 Urban Estate, Karnal.                                                                                                                                                                                                       …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1. The Managing Director, Karbonn Mobiles, Head office Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, Delhi.

2. Karbonn Mobiles Service Centre, Mugal Canal, Karnal.

3. Chawla Brothers, SCO 1035, Sector-22-B, opposite Bus Stand, Chandigarh.

 

                                                                 …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President

      Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

             

 

 Present  Complainant in person.

                Shri Mohit Tayal Advocate for OP no.1.

               Opposite parties no.2 and 3 exparte.

            

ORDER:                    

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that OP no.1 is the registered company who deals in mobile phone. The OP no.2 is the authorized service centre of the OP no.1 whereas the OP no.3 is the authorized sale counter of the OP no.1. Complainant purchased a Tablet Karbonn A37, 911305200392810 with white colour alongwith charger worth Rs.8000/- from the OP no.3 on 17.8.2014 vide bill no.6134. Since the purchase of said tablet, it is not working properly and used to remain hand. Complainant approached the OPs no.2 and 3 various times to rectify the problem or to change the said defected tablet with branded new one but OPs no.2 and 3 always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OPs no.2 and 3 several times and lastly on 19.12.2014 she contacted the OP no.2 and OP no.2 took the tablet in their possession and assured that they would set right the same and collect after week. Thereafter, complainant contacted the OP no.2 so many times but OP no.2 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and in the month of May, OP no.2 handed over the said tablet without any rectification. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs so many times for repair of the tablet but all in vain. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 and 2 filed their written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; without any technical expert report is not maintainable; deficiency in service and concealments of true and material facts. The true facts are that the complainant visited the office of OP no.2 on 7.11.2014 with dead handset which is out of warranty due to physical damaged. OP no.2 had issued the job-sheet to the complainant and specifically mentioned that the Tablet set is out of warranty and this fact was admitted by the complainant and thereafter the OP no.2 checked the Tablet for making of estimate cost of repair. Thereafter, the OP no.2 found that Tablet set was totally damaged. And the repair cost of the Tablet was told to the complainant but the complainant not agreed for depositing the said costs, as such the OP no.2 did not carry any repair and the said Tablet phone was returned to the complainant immediately in same condition as brought by the complainant. As such there was no manufacturing defect in the Tablet set of the complainant and there is no liability on the part of the OPs as per the terms and conditions of the warranty card. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OPs no.2 and 3 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 10.9.2015 and 7.10.2015 respectively.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 15.1.2016.

5.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Devender Prop. Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence on 1.4.2016.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that there is no dispute that the complainant purchased a Tablet Carbonn A37, 911305200392810 from OP no.3 manufactured by OP no.1, vide bill no.6134 dated 17.8.2014 for a sum of Rs.8000/-. It is also not disputed that OP no.2 is the service centre of OP no.1.

8.             According to the complainant, the said tablet was not working properly and remained hang since the time of its purchase. The complainant approached the OPs no.2 and 3 various times to rectify the problem or to change the tablet but the OPs neither removed the problem nor charged the tablet. The complainant lastly contacted the OP no.2 on 19.12.2014 and the OP no.2 took the Tablet for removing the problem and asked to collect after a week. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the OP no.2 many times but the OP no.2 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and in the month of May, OP no.2 returned the tablet without rectification. The complainant alleged that the Tablet is having a manufacturing defect from the day of its purchase. The complainant produced in her evidence job sheet dated 7.11.2014 and bill as Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3 respectively besides her affidavit Ex.C1.

9.             On the other hand, the OP no.1 contended that no doubt the OP no.2 has proceeded exparte but the OP no.1 has filed the joint written statement on behalf of OPs no.1 and 2. It is again mentioned here that the OP no.3 has also been proceeded exparte. OP no.1 and 2 contended that the complainant visited the OP no.2 on 7.11.2014 with dead handset which was out of warranty due to physical damage. The OP no.2 issued a job sheet dated 7.11.2014, the copy of same has been placed on the file by the complainant as Ex.C-2, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the Tablet was OW  (out of warranty) and this fact was admitted by the complainant. Thereafter, the OP no.2 checked the Tablet for estimate cost of repair but the Tablet was found totally damaged. The cost of repair was told to the complainant, but the complainant was not agreed for depositing the said costs, as such the Tablet returned immediately without repair.

10.           As stated above, the complainant has produced only one job sheet Ex.C2 in her evidence and the same is dated 7.11.2014. In this job sheet, it is specifically mentioned that the Tablet was out of warranty on 7.11.2014. The allegation of complainant that she had lastly approached the OP no.2 on 19.12.2014 and the Tablet was kept by OP no.2 but no job sheet of 19.12.2014 has been placed on the file by the complainant. So without job sheet the allegations of complainant that her Tablet was kept by OP no.2 on 19.12.2014 has no force and the same is not proved on the file. The job sheet dated 7.11.2014 shows that the Tablet was out of warranty on 7.11.2014 supports the contention of OPs. The complainant has placed on the file job sheet dated 7.11.2014 but did not mention about the same in her complaint and even the complainant has not mentioned the fact that she had gone to the OP no.2 on 7.11.2014 and OP no.2 had issued the job sheet Ex.C2. The complainant has not produced any evidence on the file vide which it can be said that the complainant has approached the OP no.2 on 19.12.2014 and OP no.2 had taken her Tablet set. The complainant has alleged about manufacturing defect in the Tablet in question but the complainant has not produced any expert evidence in this regard and failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the tablet. Hence the allegations levelled by the complainant are not proved on the file by the cogent evidence. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs.

11.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:02.02.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Anil Sharma)     

                        Member