BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.51/14.

Date of instt.: 25.02.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 08.06.2015.

Kapil Chauhan S/o Kehar Singh, resident of Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Bharti Communications, Shop No.9, Goal Market, Kaithal through its prop./owner/partner.

2. Shri Ganesh Telecom Shastri Market, Opp. Topian Wala Gurudawara near Opp. Sahil Tailor, Kaithal through its prop./owner Varun.

3. Karbonn Customer Care Service, Karbonn Jaina Marketing and Associates, 245, Sant Nagar, East of Kailasi, New Delhi-110065 and now at Jaina Marketing and Associates, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110020, India.

..……..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.

Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.

Op No.2 already exparte.

Sh. Mukesh Bansal, Adv. for Op 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 a mobile Karbonn Model A-27 from the Op No.1 for sum of Rs.8600/- bearing IMEI No.911304200136889 Sr.No.911304200136897 from Op No.1 vide bill No.2504 dt. 03.06.2013.  It is alleged that since the date of purchase of said mobile, the same was spoiled and the mobile was not working properly and it started created P.C. system problem and battery problem and starting worming at the time of charging.  It is alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.2 and Op No.2 after keeping the said mobile has issued job-sheet No.KJASPHR0801013K5281 dt. 02.10.2013 and since then the said mobile is with the Op No.2.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Op No.2 several times to return the said mobile after repair but the Op No.2 did not do so.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 3 appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 27.03.2014.  Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum; that the present complaint is filed without any expert opinion which will prove that the mobile is not working properly and merely by the oral version of the complainant, it cannot be ascertained that the mobile is not working properly; that as per the law mentioned in a case 2008(2) CLT page 172 and the law mentioned in 2010 CPJ NC P-235, it has been held that without an expert opinion, it cannot be ascertained that the unit acquires a manufacturing defect.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.     Op No.3 filed the written statement on the same line as of Op No.1 and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.     

4.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.  

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

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

7.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased a mobile Karbonn Model A-27 from the Op No.1 for sum of Rs.8600/- bearing IMEI No.911304200136889 Sr.No.911304200136897 from Op No.1 vide bill No.2504 dt. 03.06.2013.  Since the date of purchase of said mobile, the same was spoiled and the mobile was not working properly and it started created P.C. system problem and battery problem and starting worming at the time of charging.  The complainant approached the Op No.2 and Op No.2 after keeping the said mobile has issued job-sheet No.KJASPHR0801013K5281 dt. 02.10.2013 and since then the said mobile is with the Op No.2.  The complainant requested the Op No.2 several times to return the said mobile after repair but the Op No.2 did not do so.  The complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit (Ex.CW1/A), copy of bill (Ex.C1) and copy of job-sheet (Ex.C2).  So, we are of the considered view that the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.      

8.     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.2504 dt. 03.06.2013.  However, it is made clear that if the said mobile as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the Ops, then the Ops shall refund Rs.8600/- 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.8600/- 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.08.06.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.