Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/255/2014

Arvind Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Shri Vastva Communication - Opp.Party(s)

16 Feb 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.

                                                                                                                         Consumer Complaint No.255 of 2014                                                                                                                                                                 Date of Institution: 05.08.2014                                                                                                                                                            Date of Decision: 16.02.2015

Arvind Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Singh Prajapat, R/o Village Jharsa, Tehsil and District Gurgaon.

                                                                                        ……Complainant.

 

                                                Versus

 

1. Shri Vastva Communication, Shop No.67, Bhargava Palace, New Railway Road, Gurgaon.

 

2. Nishar Khan, Head of KARBON Titanium Company, Sector 12, Gurgaon.

 

3. Authorized Person of Karbonn Service Center, Sector-12, Gurgaon.

 

4. Authorized Person of Karbonn Service Centre, Sukhrali, Gurgaon.

 

                                                                                       ….Opposite parties.

                                               

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                  

 

BEFORE:     SH.RAGHVINDER SINGH BAHMANI, PRESIDENT.

                     SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER.

 

Present:        Sh. Arvind Kumar, Complainant in person

                    OP-1 to OP-4 exparte

 

ORDER       R.S.BAHMANI, PRESIDENT.    

 

              The complainant alleged that he has purchased a Mobile Phone of Karbonn Company Code-S-5 Plus, bearing IMEI No.911309353852554, 911309354367925 for a sum of Rs.12100/- from OP-1 vide Cash Memo No.7187 dated 10.01.2014 (C-1). At the time of its purchase OP-1 has assured that Mobile Phone has Warranty of one year and its Battery has Warranty of six months. The complainant has produced Warranty Card (C-1A) It is further alleged that on 08.07.2014 its Battery bursted   and its  screen  damaged. He informed the OPs about the damage in the Battery but OP replied that Battery has no Warranty. He sent email to the OP-2 on 17.07.2014 (C-2) who later on refused to consider the request of the complainant. Thus, the OPs are deficient in providing services to the complainant. He is entitled to replacement of Mobile Phone. He also requested that legal action against the OPs be taken. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents referred above.

2                 Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OPs however failed to turn up despite service and thus, OP-1 to OP-3 were proceeded exparte on 14.10.2014 while OP-4 was proceeded exparte on 03.12.2014.

3                 We have heard the complainant and appraised the material on record carefully. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed above and after perusing the document produced on record, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has purchased a Mobile Phone of Karbonn Company Code-S-5 Plus, bearing IMEI No.911309353852554, 911309354367925 for a sum of Rs.12100/- from OP-1 vide Cash Memo No.7187 dated 10.01.2014 (C-1). It is further alleged that it has one year Warranty for Mobile Phone (handset) and six months for Battery, charger and accessories (C-2). He has further alleged that on 08.07.2014 the Battery of the Phone bursted due to which the screen of the Mobile Phone damaged. He informed the OPs to this effect but they told him that Battery has no Warranty though Warranty Card (C-2) provides Warranty for Battery, Charger and Accessories for six months. He sent email to OP-2 on 17.07.2014 (C-2) which was replied by OP-2 that the case of the complainant is not considered under Warranty (C-2). The complainant supported his version by filing his affidavit whereas the OPs failed to rebut the claim of the complainant as they did not appear before this Forum despite service and were exparte. Thus, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unrebutted.  Thus, the OPs are deficient in providing services to the complainant.

 

3                 Consequently, the complainant is entitled to replacement of Mobile Phone S-5 Plus  with same model or refund its price Rs.12100/-. The complainant has been harassed by the OPs causing mental agony and thus, he is entitled to compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

Compliance be made within 30 days.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.

 

Pronounced in open court.                           

Dated: 16.02.2015.

                                                                                                   President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                                                                 Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

                 (Jyoti Siwach)

                       Member