DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 24/2017
D.No.__________________ Date: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
ARUN KUMAR BANSALS/o SH. BANWARI LAL,
R/o GH-1/952, CREATIVE HEIGHTS,
SEC.-29, ROHINI, DELHI-110085.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1.DAKSHYA INTERNATIONAL SERVICES,
(AUTHORIZED SERVICE CENTRE OF
KARBONN MOBILE),
D-12/189, SEC.-8, SAI BABA CHOWK,
BESIDES DILLI GATE RESTAURANT,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
2. GUPTA SALES CORPORATION,
253, KOHAT ENCLAVE,
PITAM PURA, DELHI-110034.
3. KARBONN MOBILES,
D-170, OKHLA INDL. AREA, PH-I,
NEW DELHI-110020.… OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 04.01.2017
Date of decision:03.10.2019
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under Section 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby
CC No.24/2017 Page 1 of 6
alleging that the complainant booked a mobile handset Karbonn S-205 online at home on 18.07.2016 and the official of Flipkart gave an order no. OD106568035417944000 and on 19.07.2016, one courier boy came at the premises of the complainant from OP-2 and delivered a mobile handset vide IMEI no. 911479651494563 & 911479651494571 and the complainant paid Rs.5,490/- against invoice no. FOA62DL17-3188 on 19.07.2016. The complainant further alleged that the complainant was shocked when at the time of opening of box the complainant found that the play store not working properly and the complainant contacted to OP-1 on 23.09.2016 and requested OP-1 to replace the said mobile handset and gave DOA, the official of OP-1 received mobile handset against job sheet no. KJASPDL114916KR23298. Thereafter, at the time of taking the said faulty mobile handset the official/worker of OP-1 assured to the complainant to return the said mobile handset in good running condition within 10 days but when the complainant approached to OP-1 after 10 days the official of OP-1 denied to handover the mobile handset. The complainant further alleged that the complainant many times visited at the service centre of OP-1 and requested to return the said mobile handset but all the requests of the complainant were fallen in deaf ears. Thereafter, the complainant approached and requested to OP-3 but again the fake and false assurance was given by the manager of OP-3 and the complainant sent an e-mail to OP-3 on 13.10.2016 but no avail and
CC No.24/2017 Page 2 of 6
the complainant sent registered letter to OP-2 & OP-3 on 21.10.2016 but the officials of OPs did not give any proper response. The complainant further alleged that the said faulty mobile was still lying with OP-1 and the complainant has suffered a loss and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for refund of the invoice amount i.e. Rs.5,490/- alongwith interest as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing him mental pain, agony and harassment and has also prayed for grant of legal expenses of Rs.1,100/-.
3. Notices to OP-1 & OP-2 were issued through speed post for appearance on 13.01.2017 and the notices to OP-1 & OP-2 were served on 13.01.2017 as per track reports. But none for OP-1 & OP-2 appeared on 13.01.2017, 08.02.2017, 05.07.2017 & 21.09.2017 and as such OP-1 & OP-2 have been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.09.2017.
4. Only OP-3 has been contesting the case and filed written statement and submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is frivolous, vexatious, devoid of merits and the case is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP-3 further submitted that the complainant purchased mobile handset on 19.07.2016 and the said mobile handset was working and the complainant has checked prior to purchase of the said mobile handset and it is clear
CC No.24/2017 Page 3 of 6
that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset and the complainant approached the authorized service centre on 23.09.2016 and the mobile handset of the complainant was repaired by the service centre of OP. OP-3 further submitted that OP repaired the said mobile handset on same day and duly informed to the complainant to collect the repaired mobile handset and the complainant refused to collect the same and is demanding new mobile handset.
5. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of OP-3 which has been taken by OP-3 in the written statement.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of retail invoice no. FOK62DL17-3188 dated 18.07.2016 issued by Flipkart, copy of service job sheet no. KJASPDL114916KR23298 dated 23.09.2016 and copies of complaint dated 21.10.2016 wrote by the complainant to OP-1 & OP-3 by speed post and copy of e-mail communication sent by the complainant to OP dated 13.10.2016.
7. On the other hand on behalf of OP-3,Sh. Amit Kumar,A.R. of OP-3 filed his affidavit in evidence which is as per lines of defence taken by OP-3 in the written statement. OP-3 also filed copy of warrantee card. OP-3 also filed written arguments.
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by
CC No.24/2017 Page 4 of 6
the complainant and OP-3. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant and it appears that there has been a manufacturing and inherent defect in the mobile handset. It is hard to believe that the complainant will cause damage to his mobile handset by using in a faulty manner. Moreover, it is hard to believe that the complainant will lodge a false complaint against the newly purchased handset immediately after purchase. Admittedly the mobile handset was within warrantee period and as OP-1 & OP-3 have failed to rectify the problem in the mobile handset and as such OP-1 & OP-3 have indulged in unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 & OP-3. Accordingly, OP-1 & OP-3 are held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Accordingly, OP-1 & OP-3 jointly or severally are directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,490/- being the cost of the mobile handset on return of original bill, job sheet & accessories.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation.
CC No.24/2017 Page 5 of 6
10. The above amount shall be paid by OP-1 & OP-3 jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP-1 & OP-3 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% perannum from the date of receiving of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1 & OP-3 fail to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, thecomplainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of csost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 3rd day of October, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.24/2017 Page 6 of 6
