BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.172 of 2014

Date of Instt. 21.05.2014

Date of Decision :16.01.2015

Shivangi daughter of Pankaj Kumar, 46-New Bechint Nagar, Reru, Jalandhar-144012.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Harsehag Communication, Shop No.2-3, Plot No.232, Street No.6-A, Opposite Mobile Market, Central Town, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Manager.

2. Karbon Mobiles, D-170 Okhla, Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110020 through its Officer-in-charge.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.KC Malhotra Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased one handset FSN M08BJTAAFF BWRP Mobile, Model A5, while vide invoice dated 20.11.2012 as per order ID 002119141265 dated 19.11.2012 for Rs.4990/- from opposite party No.1. The mobile was purchased for self use. The mobile handset carried warranty of one year. After use of mobile on activation, it was noticed by the complainant that mobile set display was blank and was not upto mark and giving trouble and not displaying and not audible and of no help due to software problem. Since the mobile handset started giving trouble as narrated (supra) within warranty period soon after its purchase, the complainant contacted opposite party No.2 as advised by opposite party No.1. The troubling mobile set was delivered/handed over on 8.11.2013 to opposite party No.1 vide service job sheet No.NIL dated 8.11.2013. The defect could not be removed/rectified and mobile set remained lying with opposite party No.1. The defective problematical mobile set remained with opposite party No.1 who told the complainant that its problem could not be rectified locally and the same was to be sent to opposite party No.2 as the defect was manufacturing. The complainant brought the defect and problem to the notice to other opposite party. The complainant was assured that his grievance, difficulty and harassment would be solved within couple of days. The complainant also contacted other opposite party and apprised them of the gentleman assurance given by opposite party No.1 not withstanding the fact that other opposite party was duty bound to ensure that the mobile in question was got corrected and rectified or in the alternative refund the amount of the price of mobile to the complainant. Despite continuous follow up telephonic inquiries and several visits nothing was done and the complainant on one pretext or the other was put off. All efforts made by the complainant to persuade and convince opposite parties went in vain and no positive action was taken either to refund the price or replace the mobile set with fresh mobile set. On such like averments, complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the sale price of the mobile handset alongwith interest. She has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that as per the information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant purchased his handset on 20.11.2012 and from that date the handset was working properly and there was no fault in the handset, but in order to harass the opposite parties firstly Mr.Pankaj on behalf of the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 on 8.11.2013 after using the phone for more than 11 months and the handset was working properly and warranty of the handset was to expire on 19.11.2013 and the complainant in order to harass and pressurize the opposite parties visited the opposite party No.1 on 8.11.2013 and stated the problem and when the engineer checked the handset then stated that handset was not covered under warranty because the complainant has got repaired the handset from other service centre which was not the authorized service centre of Karbonn and if the complainant wants to repair the handset then the complainant has to pay the service charges i.e Rs.1000/- and when the complainant agreed to pay the same then a job sheet has been issued to the complainant on 8.11.2013 and this fact was clearly mentioned on the job sheet and Mr.Pankaj agreed for the same and signed the job sheet and from that very day, neither the complainant nor Pankak had ever visited the opposite party No.1 to take back the said mobile till date which is right now in the repaired condition. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of document Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and evidence of opposite parties closed by order.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsels for the parties and also gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of complainant.

7. It is not disputed that complainant purchased the mobile handset in question vide retail invoice dated 20.11.2012 Ex.C1 for Rs.4990/-. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 alleging some defects in the mobile handset on 8.11.2013 and service job sheet Ex.C2 dated 8.11.2013 was issued by opposite party No.1. So it means that mobile handset was working properly from the date of its purchase i.e 20.11.2012 till 8.11.2013 i.e for more than 11 months. In case there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset then it would not have worked properly for more than 11 months. The version of the opposite parties is that complainant has got repaired the mobile handset previously some other unauthorized service centre and as such it was not covered under the warranty and mobile handset was booked for repair on chargeable basis and is lying in repaired condition and complainant can receive back the mobile handset after making necessary payment. On the other hand, according to complainant, the mobile handset was checked without opening the same as it was still under warranty. Further according to the complainant as the set was covered under the warranty, there was no need to pay any outside agency or service centre for repair of the same when the same could be done free of cost. We have carefully considered the above version of the complainant. On the service job sheet Ex.C2 in the remarks column it is specifically mentioned that repaired previously from other service centre. Further in the job sheet estimate on inspection is also mentioned. Still further on the top of the service job sheet Rs.1000/- is mentioned. So it means that the mobile handset was handed over to opposite party No.1 for repair on chargeable basis. In case the mobile handset has not been got repaired previously from any other unauthorized service centre then the complainant or Mr.Pankaj who handed over the mobile handset to opposite party No.1 should have raised objection at that time. It is in the affidavit Ex.OPW1/A of Bharpreet Singh, Authorized Representative of opposite party No.1 that handset was not covered under the warranty because the complainant has got repaired the handset from other service centre which was not authorized service centre of Karbonn. It is further in his affidavit that when the complainant agreed to pay the same i.e Rs.1000/-, then job sheet has been issued to him on 8.11.2013 and this fact was clearly mentioned in the job sheet and Mr.Pankaj agreed for the same and singed the job sheet. It is further in his affidavit that neither complainant nor Mr.Pankaj ever visited the opposite party No.1 to take back the said mobile handset till date which is right now in the repaired condition. The complainant has not filed affidavit of Mr.Pankaj who has handed over the mobile to opposite party No.1. We do not find any convincing reason to disbelieve the above affidavit of Bharpreet Singh, Authorized Representative/Manager of opposite party No.1.

7. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. However, the complainant may receive back mobile handset from opposite party No.1 after paying agreed charges of Rs.1000/-. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

16.01.2015 Member President