Haryana

Ambala

CC/295/2014

GARIMA GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

GURU SERVICE CENTER. - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.SINGLA

03 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

   Complaint Case No.      : 295 of 2014

    Date of Institution         : 29.10.2014

     Date of Decision            : 03.06.2015

Garima Garg wife of Sh. Tarun Singla, R/o Vikas Vihar, Railway Road, Barara, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

                                                                                       ……Complainant.

Versus

1.       Guru Service Centre, Near Badsahi Bagh Gurdwara,  Ambala City through its Authorized Signatory.

2.       Jaina Marketing and Associates, D-170, Okhla Road, Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi 110020, India through its Authorized Signatory.

3.       Star Communication, Karbonn Mobile Shoppe, near Kar  Sewa Gurdwara, Kalandari Gate, Karnal, 132001 through its Authorized Signatory.                                               

……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. S.C. SHARMA, MEMBER.                                     

Present:       Sh.  V.K. Singla, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Mohit Tayal, Adv. counsel for Ops.

ORDER.

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased a Mobile Phone Model S-1, Titanium of Karbonn Company on 09.01.2014 in a sum of Rs.7800/- vide invoice No.1486 and the said mobile phone started giving problems in the month of June 2014.  So, the complainant visited the OP No.1 who checked the mobile phone and retained it for repair and was returned back after a month. The complainant alleged that again the mobile phone started giving problem of ‘network and automatically shut down’ and for rectifying these problems, the complainant visited OP No.1 in the month of September & October 2014 but the OP misbehaved with the complainant and apprised that the defect of mobile set in question cannot be rectified.  Thus the complainant has prayed that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint, no cause of action and mis-joinder & non-joinder of necessary parties.  On merits, it has been urged that a false complaint has been filed by the complainant with the intention to get undue advantage of the process of law. The complainant never approached the Ops, neither any kind of fault had been informed to them by complainant nor they ever retained the mobile set. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                In evidence, the counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant whereas on the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Gajender Chandel, Area Service Manager, Haryana, Jaina Marketing & Associates as Annexure RX and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as gone through the case file very carefully. The main grievance of the complainant is that she purchased the mobile set in question from OP No.3 on 09.01.2014 in a sum of Rs.7800/- and after sometime, the mobile phone started creating problems of ‘networking auto switch off’ but the said problems could not be rectified by the OP No.1 despite various visits to the service centre of the OP-Company whereas the mobile set was well within warranty period. It has been further argued by the complainant’s counsel that the Karbonn Mobile Model S-1 Titanium is having a technical and manufacturing defect for which other consumers who were having the mobile of same Model have also filed complaints before this Forum, copies of which are Annexures C-2 & C-3.  The counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the OP No.1 never issued any job sheet to the complainant saying that now-a-days he  has no Computer Operator for issuing the job sheet.   The complainant counsel has further relied upon the case law reported in 2008(1)CLT Page 15 rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Soni Ericsson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal and 2007(1) CLT Page 614 passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in case titled as Head, Marketing and Communication, Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor and others wherein it is held  that inspite of repair of mobile set,  it did not work and thus observed that the handset was having inherent defects and refund of the cost of mobile was ordered.

                   On the other hand, the counsel for OPs has argued that the complainant has never visited to the OP for any kind of defect in the mobile set. As such, in the absence of technical report/defect, it cannot be ascertained that the mobile set is having any manufacturing defect.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

5.                 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is crystal clear from the document Annexure C-1 that the mobile set in question was sold by the OP No.3 to the complainant on 09.01.2014.  It is also not disputed that the mobile set is having a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase.  The version of the OPs that the complainant never complained of defect in the mobile set nor brought the mobile set to their service centre for repair is not believable because no affidavit has been filed by the Op No.1 i.e. Service Centre of OP-company to the effect that the complainant never approached their service centre for rectification of the alleged defect.  Besides this, the Ops put in appearance before the Forum on 05.12.2014 but till today they never offered for settling the grievance of the complainant by getting  checked the mobile set in question from their Engineer/authorized service centre which is also a deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

                   So, from the above discussed facts, we have come to the conclusion that the version put forth by the complainant is believable and the mobile set is having some functional/technical problem and as such the complainant was deprived of  from the facility of mobile phone from the date of its defect to till date.  Hence, it is a clear cut case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service committed by OPs No.1 & 2 with the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is accepted and OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of order:-

1. To refund the cost of mobile set to the complainant to the tune of Rs.7800/- as per invoice alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of  institution of complaint till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.2000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as the complainant was deprived of from the facility of mobile set.
3.  Also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as litigation charges.

 

                   Further the award in question/directions issued above shall be complied with by the OPs No.1 & 2 within a stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts  shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is allowed in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced:          03.06.2015                                                

                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                 (A.K. SARDANA)

              PRESIDENT       

 

         

                                                                                           Sd/-

            (S.C. SHARMA)

                                                                                       MEMBER