BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.301 of 2014

Date of Instt. 29.08.2014

Date of Decision :25.02.2015

Amritpal Singh, aged about 22 years son of Surjit Singh R/o H.No.2765, Ward No.10, Near Railway Station, Adampur District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Chawla Telecom, Railway Road, Adampur Doaba(Jalandhar), through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Representative.

2. Harsehaj Communication, Shop No.3, 2nd Floor, Plot No.323, Street No.6A, Mobile Market, Central Town, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Representative.

3. Karbonn Customer Care Service, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110020 through its Director/Manager/Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OPs 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 on 20.2.2014 the complainant purchased mobile handset make Karbonn A-25, Dual Sim i.e IMEI:-9113084029 84491, IMEI:-911308403234490 for Rs.6950/- from opposite party No.1 vide bill No.539 dated 20.2.2014. Warranty of 12 months for above said mobile phone was given by the opposite parties. After two months from the date of purchase of said set, it started to give trouble like hanging problem. The complainant brought the above defect into the notice of opposite party No.1 who advised the complainant to approach their authorized service centre/opposite party No.2. On 24.4.2014 the complainant handed over the defective mobile handset to opposite part No.2 for rectification. The opposite party No.2 checked the mobile handset and told the complainant that its software would be updated and called on the complainant to take the set after two hours. After two hours when the complainant went to take the set, opposite party No.2 told the complainant that its software has been updated. But after two hours its network failed to work. Again 28.4.2014 the complainant went to opposite party No.2 and told the opposite party No.2 that its network its not working. The opposite party No.2 checked the mobile handset and told the complainant to take back the set after one week. After one week the opposite party No.2 returned the handset but after 15-20 days the problem started. On 16.7.2014 the complainant again gave the said mobile handset to opposite party No.2 for rectification of above said defect. The opposite party No.2 kept the handset with them vide their job sheet No.127 dated 16.7.2014. The opposite party No.2 told the complainant to take back the set after one month but after one month when the complainant went to take back the handset, the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that due to some major fault, the said handset has been set to company for repair or replacement. When the complainant asked the opposite party No.2 when the said set would be given back to complainant, the reply of the opposite party No.2 was that they do not know when the company will return the said handset. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 to replace the handset with new one but the opposite party refused to replace the said handset. The above said mobile handset is still lying under the custody of opposite party No.2 which they have neither repaired nor replaced despite several visits and so many telephonic calls. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the above said mobile handset with new one with fresh warranty or to return its price as per bill. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared and filed their written reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, non disclosure of true facts, want of cause of action etc. They further pleaded that as per the information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant purchased his handset on 20..2.2014 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 16.7.2014 after the expiry of more than five 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 16.7.2014 and the complainant was ever eager to book his handset and the opposite party No.2 booked the handset of the complainant vide job sheet No.127 dated 16.7.2014 and at the time of booking the handset the complainant told that there was a problem of network in the handset and the engineer after the preliminary checking, told that there was no problem of network in the handset but the problem was occurred on the part of network provider but the complainant refused to listen anything and told that he want to replace his handset and the opposite party No.2 told that if the complainant wants to replace his handset with the swapped one then the complainant has to wait for 45-60 days as there is the process of approval and the complainant agreed for the same and on 12.9.2014, the opposite party No.2 received the swapped handset from the opposite party No.3 and called the complainant on the same date but the complainant refused to listen anything and told that he will file the complaint in this Forum. 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 affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of document Ex.C2 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 complainant in person 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 20.2.2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.6950/-. According to the complainant after two months from the date of purchase the mobile handset in question, it started giving problems and he approached opposite party No.2 firstly on 24.4.2014 and then 28.4.2014 and lastly on 16.7.2014. On the other hand, according to opposite parties No.2 and 3, the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.2 for the first time on 16.7.2014. The complainant has placed on record service job sheet dated 16.7.2014 Ex.C2 only. He has not produced copies of earlier job sheets when he allegedly visited opposite party No.2. In their written reply, opposite parties No.2 and 3 have pleaded that the opposite party No.2 told that if the complainant wants to replace his handset with the swapped one then he has to wait for 45-60 days as there is the process of approval and the complainant agreed for the same and on 12.9.2014, the opposite party No.2 received the swapped handset from the opposite party No.3. The fact that opposite parties No.2 and 3 agreed to give swapped handset to the complainant in lieu of his old mobile handset clearly tends to prove that the mobile handset of the complainant was defective and beyond repair. In case the mobile handset of the complainant was repairable then the opposite parties No.2 and 3 would not have agreed to give the swapped handset to the complainant. So in these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the mobile handset with new one.

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 and in case the same model is not available then to refund its price to the complainant. However the complainant shall return the accessories of the old mobile handset to opposite parties No.2 or 3 before getting the replacement or in the alternative price of the mobile handset. The complainant is awarded Rs.2000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

25.02.2015 Member Member President