BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No.406 of 2014 Date of Institution: 22.10.2014
Date of Decision: 29.1.2015
Kapoor Singh, aged 51 years, son of Harkishan Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Chak Saido Ke, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Fazilka.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. Doomra Telecom, Bagha Bazaar, Near Old Sabzi Mandi, Jalalabad (W) through its authorized signatory/responsible person.
2. Durga Telecom, Bagga Bazaar, Jalalabad(W), Authorized Service Centre of Karbon Mobiles, through its authorized signatory.
3. Karbon Mobiles, Jaina Marketing & Associates at D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-11000, through its Authorized Signatory, India.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate
For the opposite parties : Sh. Vishal Arora, Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
S. Gyan Singh, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a mobile Marbon A7 Karbon from opposite party No.1 on
C.C. No.406 of 2014 \\2//
1.11.2013 and paid Rs.5900/- in cash to opposite party No.1. At the time of purchase of the said cell phone, the opposite party gave one year warranty of the said handset. Further it has been pleaded that the mobile in question stopped functioning. Thereafter, the complainant approached opposite party No.1, who further sent the complainant to opposite party No.2 i.e. the service centre of opposite party No.3, manufacturer of the cell phone. Opposite party No.2 withheld the mobile set on the pretext that the same is to be sent to Delhi for repair purposes and after withholding the mobile set for two months, opposite party No.2 returned the said mobile phone. Further it has been pleaded that there is no display on the mobile and no number was visible due to manufacturing defect in mobile in question. The complainant wrote number of letters to the opposite party, but to no effect. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be issued to opposite parties to give new mobile cell or to refund its price along with interest. Further he has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that the complainant never visited the shop of opposite party No.2 and never hired
C.C. No.406 of 2014 \\3//
the services of opposite party No.2 for carrying out any alleged repairs of the mobile. No date has been mentioned by the complainant in the complaint as to when he allegedly delivered the mobile to opposite party No.2 for alleged repairs. Infact, there is no defect in the mobile of the complainant. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Learned counsel for complainant tendered into evidence Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-1 to 3/1 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
5. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties have sold defective mobile handset having manufacturing defect to the complainant and have neither repaired not replaced the same with new one despite repeated requests of the complainant. Purchase of mobile handset in question by the complainant from opposite party No.1 with warranty of one year has been proved from photo copy of Cash/Credit Memo dated 1.11.2013 Ex.C-2. The complainant has also placed on file expert opinion issued by Sandeep Singh of Momi Mobile Centre, Attari, Ferozepur as
C.C. No.406 of 2014 \\4//
Ex.C-3, vide which the said Sandeep Singh has opined that he is owner of Momi Mobile Centre, Attari, Ferozepur and has been doing the work of mobile repairs; he has checked the mobile phone of Kapoor Singh and on checking he found that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile hand set due to which proper software installation cannot be done, as a result of which display does not work properly. This expert opinion has been further corroborated with the duly sworn affidavit of said Sandeep Sing, which has been placed on the file as Ex.C-3. The said Sandeep Kumar has not been subjected to cross-examination by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have pleaded that the complainant never visited the shop of opposite party No.2 and never hired the services of opposite party No.2 for carrying out any alleged repairs of the mobile in question. But even during the proceedings of the present complaint, the opposite parties have never tried to get check the mobile handset in question and redress the grievance of the complainant. It has been established on the file that the mobile handset in question has some manufacturing defect and it is beyond repair. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to replace the mobile handset in question with new one.
6. In view of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and the opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile hand set in question with defect free new one of same make and model and also to pay
C.C. No.406 of 2014 \\5//
a sum of Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile hand set in question to opposite party No.1 within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This order is directed to be complied with jointly and severally by opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced
29.1.2015 (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
President
(Gyan Singh) Member
