View 9709 Cases Against Mobile
NITIN filed a consumer case on 08 Oct 2016 against CARBON MOBILE in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/174/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 10 Apr 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 174 /2015
Date of Institution - 16/03/2015
Order Reserved on 04/11 /2016
Date of Order - 07/10 /2016
In matter of
Mr. NitinBansal, adult
S/o- Sh. Mukesh Bansal
R/o-316/2, Mohalla Maharam
Shahdara, Delhi 110032 …………………………….……..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-M/s Karbon Mobile
B 30, 2nd Floor,
Nirman Vihar, Delhi 110092
2- M/s Karbonn Mobile
D 170, Okhala Industrial Area Phase I,
New Delhi 110020…………………………….……………………………Opponents
Complainant …………………………………………In person
Opponent 1&2 ……………………………………..Jyoti Sharma
Quorum – Sh Sukhdev Singh - President
Dr P N Tiwari - Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur - Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member
Brief Facts of the case
Complainant purchased a Karbonn mobile A-18+ white on14/03/2014 vide EMEI 911233650429066 for Rs 6900/-. It was assured that the mobile had one year warranty and in case of any problem OP1 would extend services. Complainant used his mobile for 8 months and thereafter some problem occurred. Complainant lodged complaint on OP1 vide job sheet no. KJASPDL108121448 and was would be repaired within 10 days. Complainant deposited his mobile with OP1, but did not get back even 10 days except assurance was given. Complainant also lodged complaint to OP2 who also gave assurance, but mobile was not returned after repair. Despite of number of visits and sending emails to OPs, none gave satisfactory reply or returned mobile. Hence, filed this complaint claimed compensation of Rs 80,000/-for harassment with litigation charges.
Notices were served. OP submitted written statement and stated that the said mobile had one year warranty and complainant had used for about 10 months without problem. The mobile had incoming voice problem, as mobile was under warranty with battery with accessories for six month, so OP would provide the service.
Complainant submitted its evidences on affidavit and OP also had submitted evidence through Mr Kapil Kumar on behalf of OP2. Complainant later submitted rejoinder before arguments. Arguments were heard and order was reserved.
We have gone through all the facts and evidence of case. It was admitted by OP that the said mobile had developed incoming voice problem while mobile was under warranty. It was also not denied that the mobile was not with complainant. So, we come to the conclusion that this complaint be allowed and following order was passed.
Order-
Mrs Harpreet Kaur (Dr) P N Tiwari
Member Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh
President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.