BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.194/14.

Date of instt.: 30.09.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 06.07.2015.

Pardeep son of Sh. Ajmer Singh, resident of Village Mundri (near Love-Kush Mandir), Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal, Mobile No.98124-20255

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Ahuja Mobile, Opp. Aggarwal School, Gandhi Park Market Kaithal through its Proprietor Dealer/Distributor of Karbonn Mobile Phones.

2. Karbonn Care Centre, Shashtri Market, near Topianwala Gurudawara Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.

3. Jaina Marketing and Associates D-170 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 (Manufacturer of Karbon Mobile Phones).

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Complainant in person.

                        Ops No.1 & 2 already exparte.

Sh. Mohit Tayal, Advocate for the opposite party.No.3.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased one mobile Karbonn Model Metro A51 bearing IMEI No.911342151883828 and IMEI/II-911347151883836 for the sum of Rs.3500/- vide receipt No.930 dt. 30.12.2013 from Op No.1 against the guarantee of one year.  It is alleged that the above-said mobile phone occurred problems after six months of purchase as it did not function properly, touch of screen was also not working properly and volume of said mobile was also not working properly.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.2 on 13.08.2014 and the Op No.2 kept the said mobile set for repair.  It is further alleged that the complainant visited several times to the Ops No.1 and 2 but the Op No.2 did not repair the said mobile set and told that the company is not giving spare parts for repair.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops many times for repair/replacement of said mobile set but the Ops did not repair the said mobile set nor replaced the same against new one.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party No.3 appeared before this Forum, whereas opposite parties No.1 and 2 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 17.11.2014.  Op No.3 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the complainant visited the Op No.2 for the problem of “Touch Panel Faulty” and in this regard, the Op No.2 issued the job-sheet for checking of the mobile set as per voice of the complainant and Op No.2 advised the complainant to come for collecting the mobile on the next day but the complainant did not come to collect the mobile set from the Op No.2 and the said mobile set is still lying with the Op No.2 in a good condition.  It is worthwhile to mention here that the complainant used the said mobile set for more than 7/8 months and it is the own responsibility of the complainant to collect the mobile set from the Op No.2.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties led their evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents.  

4.     We have heard both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased one mobile Karbonn Model Metro A51 bearing IMEI No.911342151883828 for the sum of Rs.3500/- vide receipt No.930 dt. 30.12.2013 from Op No.1 against the guarantee of one year.  The complainant contends that the above-said mobile phone occurred problems after six months of purchase as it did not function properly, touch of screen was also not working properly and volume of said mobile was also not working properly.  The complainant approached the Op No.2 on 13.08.2014 and the Op No.2 kept the said mobile set for repair.  The complainant visited several times to the Ops No.1 and 2 but the Op No.2 did not repair the said mobile set.  On 01.06.2015 statement of both the parties was recorded.  Statement of ld. Counsel for the Op No.3 was recorded to the effect that he has given the mobile set of Carbonn A-55 bearing IMEI No.911342151883828 to the complainant and statement of complainant was recorded to the effect that he has received the said mobile set and he may given time to inspect the same.  The complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of job-sheet Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2 and copy of certificate (Ex.C3).  Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops No.1 and 2 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte.  Op No.3 only tendered the affidavit of Sh. Gajender Chandel, A.S.M., RW3/A in evidence.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged.  So, we are of the considered view that the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.           

6.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint  and direct the Ops to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide bill No.930 dt. 30.12.2013.  However, it is made clear that if the said mobile model as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the Ops, then the Ops shall refund Rs.3500/- as the cost of mobile to the complainant.   The Ops are also burdened with cost of Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges to the complainant.  All the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of order till its realization, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount of Rs.3500/- from the date of commencement of this order till its realization.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.06.07.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.194/14.

Date of instt.: 30.09.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 06.07.2015.

Pardeep son of Sh. Ajmer Singh, resident of Village Mundri (near Love-Kush Mandir), Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal, Mobile No.98124-20255

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Ahuja Mobile, Opp. Aggarwal School, Gandhi Park Market Kaithal through its Proprietor Dealer/Distributor of Karbonn Mobile Phones.

2. Karbonn Care Centre, Shashtri Market, near Topianwala Gurudawara Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.

3. Jaina Marketing and Associates D-170 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 (Manufacturer of Karbon Mobile Phones).

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Complainant in person.

                        Ops No.1 & 2 already exparte.

Sh. Mohit Tayal, Advocate for the opposite party.No.3.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased one mobile Karbonn Model Metro A51 bearing IMEI No.911342151883828 and IMEI/II-911347151883836 for the sum of Rs.3500/- vide receipt No.930 dt. 30.12.2013 from Op No.1 against the guarantee of one year.  It is alleged that the above-said mobile phone occurred problems after six months of purchase as it did not function properly, touch of screen was also not working properly and volume of said mobile was also not working properly.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.2 on 13.08.2014 and the Op No.2 kept the said mobile set for repair.  It is further alleged that the complainant visited several times to the Ops No.1 and 2 but the Op No.2 did not repair the said mobile set and told that the company is not giving spare parts for repair.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops many times for repair/replacement of said mobile set but the Ops did not repair the said mobile set nor replaced the same against new one.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party No.3 appeared before this Forum, whereas opposite parties No.1 and 2 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 17.11.2014.  Op No.3 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the complainant visited the Op No.2 for the problem of “Touch Panel Faulty” and in this regard, the Op No.2 issued the job-sheet for checking of the mobile set as per voice of the complainant and Op No.2 advised the complainant to come for collecting the mobile on the next day but the complainant did not come to collect the mobile set from the Op No.2 and the said mobile set is still lying with the Op No.2 in a good condition.  It is worthwhile to mention here that the complainant used the said mobile set for more than 7/8 months and it is the own responsibility of the complainant to collect the mobile set from the Op No.2.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties led their evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents.  

4.     We have heard both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased one mobile Karbonn Model Metro A51 bearing IMEI No.911342151883828 for the sum of Rs.3500/- vide receipt No.930 dt. 30.12.2013 from Op No.1 against the guarantee of one year.  The complainant contends that the above-said mobile phone occurred problems after six months of purchase as it did not function properly, touch of screen was also not working properly and volume of said mobile was also not working properly.  The complainant approached the Op No.2 on 13.08.2014 and the Op No.2 kept the said mobile set for repair.  The complainant visited several times to the Ops No.1 and 2 but the Op No.2 did not repair the said mobile set.  On 01.06.2015 statement of both the parties was recorded.  Statement of ld. Counsel for the Op No.3 was recorded to the effect that he has given the mobile set of Carbonn A-55 bearing IMEI No.911342151883828 to the complainant and statement of complainant was recorded to the effect that he has received the said mobile set and he may given time to inspect the same.  The complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of job-sheet Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2 and copy of certificate (Ex.C3).  Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops No.1 and 2 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte.  Op No.3 only tendered the affidavit of Sh. Gajender Chandel, A.S.M., RW3/A in evidence.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged.  So, we are of the considered view that the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.           

6.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint  and direct the Ops to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide bill No.930 dt. 30.12.2013.  However, it is made clear that if the said mobile model as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the Ops, then the Ops shall refund Rs.3500/- as the cost of mobile to the complainant.   The Ops are also burdened with cost of Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges to the complainant.  All the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of order till its realization, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount of Rs.3500/- from the date of commencement of this order till its realization.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.06.07.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.194/14.

Date of instt.: 30.09.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 06.07.2015.

Pardeep son of Sh. Ajmer Singh, resident of Village Mundri (near Love-Kush Mandir), Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal, Mobile No.98124-20255

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Ahuja Mobile, Opp. Aggarwal School, Gandhi Park Market Kaithal through its Proprietor Dealer/Distributor of Karbonn Mobile Phones.

2. Karbonn Care Centre, Shashtri Market, near Topianwala Gurudawara Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.

3. Jaina Marketing and Associates D-170 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 (Manufacturer of Karbon Mobile Phones).

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Complainant in person.

                        Ops No.1 & 2 already exparte.

Sh. Mohit Tayal, Advocate for the opposite party.No.3.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased one mobile Karbonn Model Metro A51 bearing IMEI No.911342151883828 and IMEI/II-911347151883836 for the sum of Rs.3500/- vide receipt No.930 dt. 30.12.2013 from Op No.1 against the guarantee of one year.  It is alleged that the above-said mobile phone occurred problems after six months of purchase as it did not function properly, touch of screen was also not working properly and volume of said mobile was also not working properly.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.2 on 13.08.2014 and the Op No.2 kept the said mobile set for repair.  It is further alleged that the complainant visited several times to the Ops No.1 and 2 but the Op No.2 did not repair the said mobile set and told that the company is not giving spare parts for repair.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops many times for repair/replacement of said mobile set but the Ops did not repair the said mobile set nor replaced the same against new one.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party No.3 appeared before this Forum, whereas opposite parties No.1 and 2 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 17.11.2014.  Op No.3 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the complainant visited the Op No.2 for the problem of “Touch Panel Faulty” and in this regard, the Op No.2 issued the job-sheet for checking of the mobile set as per voice of the complainant and Op No.2 advised the complainant to come for collecting the mobile on the next day but the complainant did not come to collect the mobile set from the Op No.2 and the said mobile set is still lying with the Op No.2 in a good condition.  It is worthwhile to mention here that the complainant used the said mobile set for more than 7/8 months and it is the own responsibility of the complainant to collect the mobile set from the Op No.2.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties led their evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents.  

4.     We have heard both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased one mobile Karbonn Model Metro A51 bearing IMEI No.911342151883828 for the sum of Rs.3500/- vide receipt No.930 dt. 30.12.2013 from Op No.1 against the guarantee of one year.  The complainant contends that the above-said mobile phone occurred problems after six months of purchase as it did not function properly, touch of screen was also not working properly and volume of said mobile was also not working properly.  The complainant approached the Op No.2 on 13.08.2014 and the Op No.2 kept the said mobile set for repair.  The complainant visited several times to the Ops No.1 and 2 but the Op No.2 did not repair the said mobile set.  On 01.06.2015 statement of both the parties was recorded.  Statement of ld. Counsel for the Op No.3 was recorded to the effect that he has given the mobile set of Carbonn A-55 bearing IMEI No.911342151883828 to the complainant and statement of complainant was recorded to the effect that he has received the said mobile set and he may given time to inspect the same.  The complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of job-sheet Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2 and copy of certificate (Ex.C3).  Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops No.1 and 2 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte.  Op No.3 only tendered the affidavit of Sh. Gajender Chandel, A.S.M., RW3/A in evidence.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged.  So, we are of the considered view that the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.           

6.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint  and direct the Ops to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide bill No.930 dt. 30.12.2013.  However, it is made clear that if the said mobile model as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the Ops, then the Ops shall refund Rs.3500/- as the cost of mobile to the complainant.   The Ops are also burdened with cost of Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges to the complainant.  All the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of order till its realization, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount of Rs.3500/- from the date of commencement of this order till its realization.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.06.07.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.