BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the  30^TH March 2015

PRESENT

    SMT. ASHA SHETTY  :  HON’BLE PRESIDENT

                 SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR  :   MEMBER                                         

COMPLAINT NO.341/2013

(Admitted on 21.12.2013)

Mr.Libin Joseph,

S/o V.V. Joseph,

Of age 25 years,

Adult, X-ray Staff,

Tejasvani Hospital,

Kadri, Mangalore.                    …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for Complainant: Sri Deenanath Shetty)

          VERSUS

1. Authorised Signatory,

    M/s Bharati Retail Limited,

    Easy Day Market,

    Shankar Vittal Compound,

    Next to Casa Grande Apartment,

    Mangalore, Karnataka- 575 002.

2. Authorised Signatory,

    Karbonn Customer Care,

    Service at 245, Sant Nagar,

    East of Kallash,

    New Delhi 11- 65, India.  ……OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Opposite Parties:  Exparte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

I.      1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging defective in goods as against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The complainant stated that, on 2.12.2012 the complainant had purchased a Karbonn Mobile handset from Opposite party No.1 who is authorized dealer in Mangalore and the Opposite party No.2  is the manufacturer of the above said mobile.  It is stated that within the warranty period the charger and mobile handset conked-out despite effective necessary repairs.  It is stated that the handset has manufacturing defect and produced necessary documents and again it is stated that the mobile handset has handed over to set right problem for a few number of times even after that the handset was not working and the Opposite Party has not set right the problem and thereby the complainant could not use the mobile handset.  Hence, the complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.10,000/- the value of the subject mobile and charger along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of purchase till the final adjudication of the present complaint along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.

II.     1. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 inspite receiving version notice not appeared nor represented the case till this date. Hence Opposite Party No.1 and 2 placed exparte and postal acknowledgement marked as Court Doc.No.1 and 2.

III.    1.  In support of the complaint, Mr. Libin Joseph (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced i.e. Ex C1 and C2. Opposite Parties placed exparte.

In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Karbon Mobile Handset purchased on 2.12.2012 from the Opposite Party No.1 found to be defective?

2. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?

3. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

4. What order?

                We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

                             Point No.(i) & (ii): Negative.

                             Point No.(iii) & (iv): As per the final order.   

REASONS

IV.     1.  POINTS NO. (i) to (iv):

          In order to substantiate the averments made in the complaint the complainant filed affidavit and produced Ex.C1 and C2. However Ex.C2 is the warranty card and Ex.C1 dated 21.12.2012 contains two stickers.  However the complainant alleged that within warranty period the handset got damaged but there is no material evidence/job card nor defective handset placed before the FORA to prove that the handset is defective and not usable within the warranty period.  In the absence any material evidence we are unable to come to the conclusion that the handset is defective.

It is a settled position that, when a complainant came up with the allegations against the Opposite Parties, the entire burden lies on the Complainant to prove the same. But the in the instant case the documents produced by the Complainant not credible/convincing. Therefore, the complaint is deserves to be dismissed. No order as to cost.

In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

 The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties and therefore the file be consigned to record.

 (Page No.1 to 9 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th  day of March  2015)

                   PRESIDENT                         MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Mr.Libin Joseph – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1: 21.12.2012: the Record.

Ex C2: Manual instructions issued by the O.P.No.1.

Court Documents:

Doc.No.1 and 2: Postal Acknowledgments.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

- Nil -

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:    

- Nil -

Dated:30.3.2015                             PRESIDENT