BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.296 of 2014

Date of Instt. 26.08.2014

Date of Decision :02.02.2015

Surinder Kumar aged about 25 years son of Paras Ram R/o House No.106, Mohal Vihar, Ladehwali, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd, through its Managing Director, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.

2. M/s Sehaj Communication through its Prop/Partner, Shop No.4, Plot No.323, 2nd Floor, Mobile Market, Central Town, Jalandhar.

3. Karbonn Mobile India Pvt, Ltd, through its Managing Director, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.A.K.Arora Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for opposite parties No.2 & 3.

Opposite party No.1 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for the purchase of mobile handset make Karbonn mobile A35 911342700414026 manufactured by opposite party no.3 and same was purchased from it vide invoice No.41479 dated 6.11.2013 for Rs.6900/-. The said mobile handset stopped functioning properly after few months of purchase and the said fact was brought to the knowledge of opposite parties No.1 and 2 by the complainant. The complainant deposited the said mobile handset firstly with the opposite party No.2 on 22.3.2014 with the problem of phone overheating and other problems. The mobile handset deposited with opposite party No.2 on 22.3.2014 was received from the opposite party No.2 on 23.5.2014 and they assured the complainant that the said handset has been repaired and the problem will not be repeated again. The said mobile handset again started giving the same problems on 24.5.2014 and the same was again deposited with the opposite party No.2 for repair on 27.5.2014. In the June 2014, opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that the handset has been repaired and complainant collected the same from opposite party No.2. On 26.6.2014 the mobile handset again started giving the same problems and the same was deposited with opposite party No.2 on the same day but till date it has not been repaired. The mobile handset in question has been deposited with opposite party No.2 thrice but the same has not been repaired by them despite of repeated requests and reminder by the complainant. The handset in question purchased the complainant has a manufacturing defect and opposite party No.2 being the authorized service centre of opposite party No.3 has failed to cure the defect in the said mobile handset. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile handset i.e Rs.6900/- to him. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that as per the information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant purchased his handset on 6.11.2013 and from that date the handset was working properly and there was no fault in the handset but the complainant in order to harass and pressurize the opposite parties firstly visited the office of opposite party No.2 on 25.6.2014 after the expiry of more than seven months of the warranty period and the complainant is having the full knowledge about the said fact that after the expiry of 12 months, the complainant will not be able to replace the handset and due to said reason, the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.2 on 25.6.2014 with the problem that handset was dead and the opposite party No.2 booked the handset of the complainant vide job sheet No.KJASPPB1706K8170 dated 25.6.2014 and at the time of booking the handset the opposite party No.2 told that the complainant should come after a month and receive a new swapped handset and after one month, in the last of the July month, the opposite party No.2 received the swapped handset from opposite party No.3 and on the same day, the opposite party No.2 called the complainant but complainant refused to listen anything and told that he will file the complaint in this Forum and threatened the opposite party that this Forum shall pass the order to refund the amount of the handset alongwith compensation and opposite party has to pay the same and thereafter the complainant never turned back to receive the handset, rather in order to fulfill his in-genuine and unreasonable demand, the complainant filed the present complaint and only on this score the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. They denied the other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite party No.1 did not appear inspite of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.2 and 3 has tendered affidavits Ex.OPW1/A and evidence of opposite parties No.2 and 3 closed by order.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties No.2 and 3.

7. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.1 vide retail invoice dated 6.11.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.6900/-. The grievance of the complainant is that the handset became defective during warranty period and he gave the mobile handset to the service centre i.e opposite party No.2 trice but it failed to resolve the problem. The complainant has placed on record service job sheets Ex.C3 to Ex.C5. Even the complainant served legal notice dated 18.7.2014 Ex.C6 upon the opposite parties. In their written reply, opposite parties No.2 and 3 have admitted that opposite parties No.2 booked the handset of the complainant vide job sheet dated 25.6.2014 and at the time of booking the handset it told the complainant to come after a month and receive a new swapped handset after one month. They have further pleaded that opposite party No.2 called the complainant but he refused to listen anything. From the fact that opposite parties No.2 and 3 were ready to give swapped handset to the complainant clearly proves that the handset sold to the complainant by the opposite party No.1 was defective and was beyond repairs.

8. In the above circumstances, the complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.2 and 3 are directed to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. They are also directed to pay Rs.2500/- to the complainant in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

02.02.2015 Member President