BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.193 of 2015
Date of Instt. 07.05.2015
Date of Decision :05.11.2015
Gagandeep aged about 20 years son of Lachhman Dass R/o H.No.503, Khera Enclave, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. Harsehaj Communication, Plot No.172, 2nd Floor, New Vijay Nagar, Opp.Hakim Tilak Raj Kapoor, TV Centre Road, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Representative.
2. WS Retail Services Pvt Ltd., Oxone Manav Tech Park No.56/18, 'B' Block, 9th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Banglore-560068, Karnataka, India, through its Director/Authorized Representative.
3. Karbonn, D-170, Okhla Industrial Phase-I, New Delhi-110020, through its Director/Authorized Representative.
.........Opposite parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 3.
Sh.AS Sohal Adv., counsel for OP No.2.
Order
J.S.Bhatia (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased Karbonn A12+ mobile handset from opposite party No.2 vide invoice dated 28.11.2013 for Rs.4999/- vide order booked through Flip Kart. The opposite party No.2 sent the said mobile handset to complainant through courier. At the time of sale a lot of branding of this mobile handset was done through advertisement and one year warranty/ guarantee was given for said handset. It was assured that warranty would be provided and the company is also having its service centre at Jalandhar which will provide prompt service if required. On 8.10.2014 the complainant handed over the defective/dead handset to opposite party No.1 who after check-up told the complainant that either the set would be repaired or would be sent to the company for replacement and called on the complainant to take back the said handset after one month. When after one month the complainant went to take the handset from the opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.1 told the complainant that the said handset has been sent to company for repair or replacement and called on the complainant to visit them after one month. When after one month the complainant went to take the handset from opposite party No.1, the same excuse was made and opposite party No.1 told the complainant that the handset has been sent to Banglore which has not come back so far and again called on the complainant to visit them after one month. When after one month the complainant reached the opposite party No.1 and demanded the set, the opposite party No.1 told the complainant that the set is sent to the company which has not come back. When the complainant asked the time and proper date for delivering the handset to complainant, the opposite party no.1 told the complainant that they do not know when the set will come back and further told the complainant that when the set will come from company, message would be conveyed to complainant. The said handset it still lying with opposite party No.1 which they have neither repaired nor replaced. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the handset or to return its full price. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply opposite party No.1 & 3 pleaded that as per the information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant has purchased the handset on 28.11.2013 through online website. Flipkart and from that date the handset was working properly and there was no fault in the handset and the handset was working properly but the complainant in order to harass and pressurize the opposite parties filed the present false and frivolous complaint. It is necessary to mention that in case when the person purchases the handset online website then the company is not responsible for after sale services and in case there is any problem in the handset, then the customer has to pay the charges to rectify the problem in the handset. It is necessary to mention that if there is any warranty, then the same will be provided by the opposite party No.2 and answering opposite parties are not responsible for any warranty on the said mobile. In the present case, the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 i.e the authorized service centre of opposite party No.3 on 8.10.2014 after the expiry of more than 10 months and stated the problem in the handset and the representative told the complainant that as the complainant purchased the handset online and the customer has to pay the charges and the customer agreed for the same and signed the job sheet. But thereafter the customer/complainant never visited the office of opposite party No.1 to know the charges for repairing the handset or even to collect his handset. But the complainant in order to harass and pressurize the answering opposite parties filed the present false and frivolous complaint before this Forum and only on this score the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. They denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. In its separate written reply, opposite party No.2 pleaded that the grievance of complainant should have been only against the manufacturer i.e opposite party No.3 as the product carries manufacturer's warranty. The warranty if any on the product is extended by the manufacturer i.e opposite party No.3 and not by opposite party No.2. Further the service centres are also appointed and authorized by the opposite party No.3. It is submitted that the product was delivered to the complainant in a sealed box condition as it was received from the manufacturer and further this opposite party No.2 does not have the facility or the knowledge to ascertain if the alleged issues with the product are due to inherent manufacturing defect or due to customer abuse. In view of the above stated, this opposite party No.2 has not been involved in any unfair trade practice and can not be held responsible for causing any alleged loss to the complainant.
4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.3 and closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and evidence of opposite parties No.1 & 3 was closed by order. Further learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2/A and closed evidence.
6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties and further gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of opposite party No.2.
7. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question online through opposite party No.2 on 28.11.2013. In para 5 of the complaint, the complainant has pleaded that on 8.10.2014 he handed over the defective/dead handset to opposite party No.1 i.e service centre. So it means that handset worked properly for more than 10 months without any complaint. This fact clearly suggest that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. Ex.C2 is job sheet dated 8.10.2014 given by the service centre i.e opposite party No.1. In the service job sheet Ex.C2 in the column of condition, it is specifically mentioned “Damaged Touch”. Further in the column of job warranty “No” is mentioned. In the column of reason for action, it is mentioned that “after check charges explain”. This job sheet is signed by the customer. In the job sheet it is further mentioned that dead handset, touch broken. So from the job sheet Ex.C2 produced by the complainant himself it is evident that it is case of physical damage and physical damage is not covered under the warranty. So complainant is not entitled either to free repair or replacement of the handset. However, complainant may get the handset repaired from the service centre on chargeable basis.
8. With the above observation, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost or compensation. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia
05.11.2015 Member Member President
