BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.165 of 2015 Date of Institution : 22.9.2015
Date of Decision : 1.12.2016.
Ranjeet Kumar, aged about 23 years son of Shri Prem Chand, resident of village Neza Dela Khurd, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Jolly’s Shop, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, through its partner/ proprietor.
2. Karbonn Customer Care Centre, Shop No.89, Bishnoi Market, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Incharge/ Manager.
3. Jaina Marketing Associates (Karbonn Mobiles), D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020, through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA …………………PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Prahalad Rai , Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Amit Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 & 3.
Opposite party no.1 already exparte.
ORDER
The case of the complainant is that on 27.5.2015, he purchased one mobile of Karbonn company model Titanium Octane Plus from opposite party no.1 for Rs.10,400/- vide bill/ invoice no.11986, with warranty of one year. After purchasing of said mobile, it could not work properly and there was serious problem of speaker/ audio problem in the mobile. As and when the complainant was trying to attend any call, then voice was not listened to the contacting person. The complainant approached op no.1 who sent him to op no.2 i.e. customer care centre of Karboon and op no.2 after checking found that there is serious problem of heating and charging in the said mobile and assured for its repair or replacement with new one. Job sheet was prepared by op no.2 showing such defect. However, since 13.8.2015 the said mobile is with op no.2 and same has not been returned back to complainant and he has been making rounds since 13.8.2015 till date but no one has attended him in proper manner. The complainant made so many complaints on internet but inspite of it, the ops have not taken any step to repair or replace the said mobile and ultimately the ops have refused to admit the claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op no.1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.
3. Ops no.2 and 3 appeared through counsel but did not file written statement despite various opportunities including last opportunity.
4. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of cash/credit memo Ex.C2 and copy of job sheet Ex.C3 and closed evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel or ops No.2 & 3 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. There is nothing to dis-believe or to dis-credit aforesaid pleaded case of the complainant, which gets full support and corroboration, not only from his own supporting affidavit Ex.C1 but also from copy of receipt of service centre (Ex.C3). Bare perusal thereof, shows that the mobile set was deposited with the service centre on 13.8.2015, when it was not working and since then mobile in question is lying with op no.2. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties, to return the mobile set in question to the complainant in properly working condition after replacement of defective parts, if any free costs, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. All the three opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable to comply this order. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:1.12.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
