Date of Filing : 16.07.2011
Date of Order : 28.01.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 28th day of JANUARY 2012
PRESENT
Sri. T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH …….. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
Consumer Complaint No. 162/2011
Vijay Karlekar,
Keerthi Tailor, M.G. Road,
Kolar. ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. Vikram Karnataka Telecom,
M.G. Road, Near Keerthi Tailor,
Kolar.
2. K.R. Rajesh,
Karboon Care Mobile Corner,
Ummar Complex, Doddapet Road,
Kolar City.
(By Sri. Manjunatha.N., Adv.) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Smt. K.G. SHANTALA, MEMBER
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking refund of cost of Mobile set i.e., Rs.2,800/-, Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost and Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.09.2010, the Complainant purchased Karboon Mobile Set (Cell Phone) from OP1 for Rs,2800/-. After using it for 5 months, the Mobile Set developed problem. The Complainant approached OP1. The Mobile Phone was given to Karboon Care i.e., Authorized Service Centre. OP2 assured the Complainant and asked him to come back after 15 days and issued repair declaration on the same day i.e., 20.12.2010. The Complainant visited OP2 several times, but OP2 kept harassing him physically and mentally, but did not return his mobile as on this day. Therefore he was compelled to file this Complaint.
3. On service of notices, the Ops appeared through Counsel and filed common version. They admitted the transactions, but denied any liability relying on the exemption clauses in their receipts.
4. The points that arise for consideration are as under:
(1) Whether the Complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of Ops?
(2) What Order ?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No. 1 – Affirmative
(2) Point No. 2 – As per final order
6. The Complainant has produced 2 documents issued by the Ops. In the sale Receipt issued by OP1, there is a clause that “goods once sold cannot be taken or exchanged” and OP shirked the liability on the basis of this clause. Similarly, OP2 relied on the exemption clause in the Repair Declaration in the Receipt which reads as follows:
“BYOND Care Centre will try to repair the handset whose details are given above but no assurance an be given about the functioning of the Handset after attempting a repair by doing proper service / software upgrade or the set which is working partially may not work at all after service / software upgrade.”
7. Complainant has alleged that OP2 has not returned his Cell Phone. In Ops’ version they are silent on this fact. By not returning his Cell Phone, the Ops have shown high handedness and this amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, Point No.1 is held in favour of the Complainant.
8. Since point No. 1 is held in affirmative, Complaint is allowed and we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
Complaint is allowed.
Ops are directed to refund Rs.2,800/- towards cost of Mobile and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost within 30 days from the date of this order.
If Ops fail to pay the amount as ordered above within 30 days, they are liable to pay interest @ 12% P.A. on Rs.2,800/- from the date of default till date of payment/realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of January 2012.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T.RAJASHEKHARAIAH
Member Member President
SSS
