DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
Complaint No. : 63
Date of Institution: 26.02.2016
Date of Decision : 23.06.2016
Kuldeep Singh S/o Avtar Singh R/o Village Golewala, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
...Complainant
Versus
Karbonn Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. 39/13, off 7th Main Hall 2nd stage Appareddy Palya Indira Nagar, Banglore, India, Pin Code 560038, through its Managing Director.
Prop. Kash Telecom, Main Road, Near Govt. Senior Secondary School, Golewala, tehsil and District Faridkot. .
....Opposite parties (Ops)
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt. Parampal Kaur, Member,
Sh. P. Singla, Member.
Present: Sh. Jaswant Singh, Advocate, Ld Counsel for complainant.
Ops Exparte.
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
The Complainant filed the present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops for manufacturing and selling defective mobile phone to the complainant and for granting compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-and for deficiency in service and supply of good quality mobile phone and for causing unnecessary mental tension, pain, agony suffering etc along with cost of litigation.
2 Briefly stated facts of the complaint is that complainant purchased a Karbonn-AI-PRO mobile phone worth Rs.3600/- vide bill no. 80 dated 21.04.2015 from OP-2. The OP-2 gave one year warranty on the said mobile phone from the date of purchase. During the warranty period on 28.11.2015 said mobile phone of complainant not working properly and shut down automatically and this matter was reported to OP-2 who told that this defect could be removed from the authorized care centre of company. On 30.11.2015 complainant handed over mobile set to OP-2 for repair and removing the defect from the mobile but on 20.01.2016 he returned the mobile phone without giving any explanation. In spite of repeated requests the defect of the mobile was not removed nor was replaced. Defected mobile is not working which cause unnecessarily harassment to complainant. The complainant also issued a legal notice to the Ops through registered post but to no effect. The act and conduct of the OPs is very much unfair and irresponsible, it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, due to this reason the complainant harassed unnecessarily, face loss of work and mental agony and complainant is entitled to receive compensation from OPs. The complainant prayed that the Ops may be directed to give a new mobile phone and compensation Rs.30,000/- on account of unfair trade practice along with Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
3 The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 09.03.2016, complaint was admitted. Notice along with copy of the complaint issued to OP-1 & 2 through registered post but despite the proper notice none has appeared on behalf of OPs. OP-1 is proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.04.2016. OP-2 is also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.06.2016.
4. To prove his case the complainant in his exparte evidence tendered his duly sworn affidavit as Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and closed his exparte evidence, as there was no rebuttal.
5. We have heard the arguments of complainant and also gone through the pleadings and evidence led by Complainant. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the complainant purchased a mobile phone from OP-2 on 21.04.2015 for Rs.3600/- against duly issued bill, the said mobile was manufactured by OP-1. Ops gave warranty of one year on the said mobile phone from the date of purchase, after a short period on 28.11.2015 the said mobile phone got some defect and was not working properly and shut down automatically. He approached OP-2 who disclosed that this defect should be removed from authorized service centre of OPs. On it the complainant handed over mobile phone to OP-2 for repair and removing the defect but OP-2 returned the mobile phone to the complainant without removing the defect. The complainant made many requests to Ops to remove the defect of mobile phone or to replace it with new one but all in vain. The mobile phone is not working properly till today which caused mental harassment to the complainant. He issued a legal notice to the Ops but of no effect. These acts and conduct of the Ops are irresponsible, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Due to these acts of the OPs, complainant harassed unnecessarily, face loss of work and mental agony and complainant is entitled to receive compensation from OPs. In his support he produced the copy of the bill Ex C-5, copy of the notice Ex C-2. The Counsel for the complainant prayed that the OPs may be directed to replace his mobile with new one or refund the price along with compensation and litigation expenses.
6. As there is no rebuttal on behalf of the OPs, We have heard the arguments of complainant and also gone through the pleadings and evidence led by Complainant. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone from the OPs on 21.04.2015 and OPs gave warranty for one year on the said mobile phone but after some time his mobile phone got defect and was not working properly. He approached to Op-2 who take the mobile phone from him and returned the phone without removing defect. He requested to the Ops many times to remove the defect and replace the phone. The complainant produced copy of the bill Ex C-5 vide which he purchased the mobile phone which proves allegations that he purchase the mobile phone from the Ops and he is consumer of the OPs. In support of this allegations that the said phone is not working and request to the Ops to remove the defect. He issued a legal notice which is Ex C-2. All these documents proves the case of the complainant. We are of the considered opinion that the Ops are negligent and irresponsible, they did not remove the defect from the mobile phone of the complainant for which they are duty bound as they gave one year warranty on the said mobile phone. All these acts of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
7. In the light of above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Ops are directed to replace the mobile phone of the complainant with new one within one month from the receipt of copy of this order and in case of failure to refund Rs.3600/- price of the mobile phone along with interest @ 9% PA from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 26.02.2016 till realization. The OPs are further ordered to pay Rs.4000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by the complainant due to negligence of OPs. The OPs are also burdened to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Ops are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 23.06.2016
Member Member President
(P Singla) (Parampal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
