The complainant   has filed this complaint petition against   Pradeep Jain Managing Director Karbon  Mobile Phone Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi and one another  (o.ps) for realization of Rs. 5850/-  as value of Mobile Phone, Rs. 2,000/- for mental harassment, and litigation cost also.

The, brief, facts of the case is that complainant Shreya purchased a Karbonn  A12+ Mobile Phone Bearing No.IMEI-1; 911305401760768, IMEI-2 911305401863262 with battery and charger  from shop of o.p no.-2  Big Mobile city near AXIS Bank Club Road Kalyani Muzaffarpur. Further case is that  from December 2014, Battery of the phone stopped to do function.  The complainant tried to replace the battery  at Muzaffarpur, Patna and New Delhi but neither service centre   of the o.p nor seller provided the battery, so Mobile Phone became useless. The complainant has mentioned the receipt no. of purchasing of Mobile in the complaint petition. With the complaint petition photocopy of retail invoice of Karbonn Mobile A12+ has been annexed.

On issuance of summon o.p no.-1 didn’t appear before  forum, so Forum  proceed Ex. Party  against him. 

O.P No.-2  appeared before the forum and filed his  w.s. on  05-03-2016. In his w.s. o.p no.-2 has admitted  the purchase of mobile by the complainant  on 26-10-2013 vide receipt no. 912 from  his shop.  He has also admitted that the complainant had approached him for complaint of  disorder of mobile after one year. He has further stated that the warranty  period of mobile was expired at that time. He has further stated that he sells mobile and concerned company has established his separate  service centre for servicing  of the mobile. He has further stated that he had told to the complainant  about servicing  centre and she had to attend herself before service centre. He has further stated that he can only made  available duplicate  battery , if the same was produced before him. Lastly,  he has prayed to exempt  him from the  liabilities. He has annexed the  photo copy of warranty card.

 On behalf of the complainant, she  has examined herself on affidavit as AW1 . She has filed photocopy of the advertisement  made by Karbonn Mobile India Pvt Ltd. as annexure-1. She has stated in his deposition that she  Saw the advertisement of Karbonn A12 + on the internet  and contacted  Karbonn  Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. and made enquiry  regarding the feature, quality and specification of the same model of mobile handset. Purchasing of mobile  from shop   of o.p no.-2 is an admitted fact AW-1 Shreya has stated in her  deposition that the mobile  phones had ranging from one  to two years of warranty  from the date of purchase  and the service period of   said mobile handset was up to 36 month. She has further stated the o.p no.-1 has  announced this notice regarding the warranty period  on the internet and the o.p no. 1 & 2  are bond to follow it. She has annexed the  Photocopy of  advertisement made by Karbonn Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. as annexure-1. She has further stated that the complainant has never violated instructions given by o.p no.-1 while using the said product. She has further stated that the complainant during warranty period noticed that the battery  installed  in the mobile handset is not functioning properly and backup of the mobile handset was very low. She has  further stated that the mobile handset suddenly discharged within 1 hours without using and operating the said  product. She has further stated that  the battery of the  Mobile handset was not  functioning properly. She has further stated that she lodged a complaint with o.p no.-2 and requested to  take step from his own level so that the defect persisting  in said  product would be remove without committing  unnecessary  delay.  She has further  stated that  the o.p no.-2 totally ignored the request made by the complainant and  directed the complainant to lodge a company with the o.p no.-1 She has further stated that the complaint  has followed the instructions as given by o.p no.-2 and lodged a complaint with the customer care of the o.p no.1. She has  further stated that the customer care of the  o.p no.-2 instructed the complainant  to approach the nearest service centre. She has further stated that the complainant prayed the authority  of service centre of the o.p no.-1 situated at Muzaffarpur, Patna and New Delhi but the battery installed in the handset was not replaced with another piece of same description and of good quality. She has further stated that the complainant  requested   the o.p no.-1 to provide the benefit of warranty but the o.p no.-1 fail the provide the benefit of warranty to the complainant  on one pretext or other.

The o.p no.-2 has admitted the purchasing of mobile set from his shop by the complainant. He has also admitted that the complainant has approached him with complaint for discharge of battery. He has produced a photocopy of warranty card which is blank. It does not disclose about product and the person   who purchased the product.   No other evidence has been adduced on behalf of  o.ps to rebut the evidence adduced on  behalf of complainant.  Annexure-1 also supports the contents of the deposition and  warranty period. It has been mentioned that the mobile phone have warranty period  ranging    from  1 to 2 years while  the service period  is up to 36 months. So, it also supports the deposition of the complainant.

On the basis of the  above discussion  and material available  of record, It is crystal clear that the battery of the mobile handset was become unfunctional  within  warranty  period  and the same was not  replaced either by o.p no.-1 or by o.p no.-2 O.p no.-2 is also bound to place the  handset before service centre of  o.p no.p-1 for replacing the same but he  didn’t  do so. So, there is deficiency  on part of  o.ps and due to non functioning of the  battery , mobile  handset became worthless.

Accordingly, complaint petition is allowed O.ps are directed to pay Rs. 5850/- as value of mobile   to the complainant with 7 %  p.a. interest   from the date of filing  of  complaint petition, Rs. 2000/- as mental agony and physical harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost within Two  month  from the receipt of the copy of the order, on failure they shall be responsible for payment of aforesaid amount with 9 % interest p.a. till realization. Let a copy of this order be furnished to both the parties as per rule.