ORDER
Per V. K. DABAS, MEMBER
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile handset model Karbon A27+ from OP1 manufactured by Karbonn (OP3) on 26.3.2014 for a sum of Rs. 7,500/- with a warranty period of one year vide reciept no. 3398 , book number 340. It is alleged by the complainant that within few days of its purchase , the mobile handset stopped working properly i.e. it used to hang and the battery used to discharge automatically. It is further alleged by the complainant that he had contacted OP1 who kept the mobile handset for repairs but could not remove the defect in the machine and returned it unrepaired. Thereafter , the complainant had visited many service centres of OP3 for repair of the mobile handset but the service centres replied that they cannot provide service to him becuase the mobile handset is a Banglore product. It is alleged by the complainant that even on repeated requests , OP2 neither agreed to repair nor replace the mobile handset. Also OP2 refused to give anything in writing to the complainant in this respect. Hence, the complaint.
OP2 and OP3 choose not to contest the complaint and did not apper despite service of notice. Hence they were ordered to beprocedeed with ex-parte. OP1 contested the complaint and filed a written statement. In the written statement OP1 has denied all allegations and averments made in the complaint. Para 5 of the written statement is relevant for arriving at a conclusion in this case and is reproduced as under:-
Para 5. That the contents of para no. 5 of the complaint are only admitted to the extent that the complainant had has reached/ visisted the shop of OP1 and where the OP1 had told that the problem of mobile was not clear. Rest of the contents of the para under reply are denied for the want of knowledge and strict proof of the same is sought from the complainant. It is further submitted that the answering OP1 is only the dealer of the mobile phones and in no way concerned with the service of the sold mobile phones.
In the evidence, the complainant has reiterated the contents of the complaint. He has placed on record a receipt number 338998 book number 340 dated 26-3-2014 issued by Bhagwati Electronics for Rs 7500/- and a copy of the letter written to Bhagwati Electronics for replacement of the handset or refund of the cost of the handset along with a reciept of the courier. OP1 has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has supported the contents of the written statement filed by him. In the evidence, OP1 has reiterated that he is only a dealer of the mobile handsets and is in no way concerned with the service of the sold mobile handset and has no responsibility to give any type of relief to the complainant.
We have perused the record and have heard the arguments advanced at the bar. On perusal of the record and having heard the arguments, it is clear that OP1 is only a dealer of the mobile handsets. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that OP1 is not guilty of providing deficiency of service to the complainant . OP2 had however refused to provide service to the complainant on the pretext that the mobile handset was manufactured in Bangalore. OP3 is the manufacturing company of the mobile handset in question and is responsible for the manufacturing defects in the said mobile handset. Also , OP2 and OP3 did not come forward to contest their case. We are, therefore, constrained to hold OP2 and OP3 guilty of deficiency in service and providing defective goods to the complainant and direct OP2 and OP3 jointly and severally as under:-
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 7500/- alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 30.5.2014 till payment.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 7000/- as compensation for pain & agony suffered by him.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2000/- as cost of litigation.
- Take back the handset from the complainant after payment.
The OP1 shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. IF the OP1 fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
