BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 207 of 2015
Date of Institution : 20.11.2015
Date of Decision : 2.9.2016
Naseeb Kumar son of Shri Lilu Ram, resident of village Tamaspura, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Kamal Mobile Zone, Main Zone, Main Chowk, Kullan, District Fatehabad through its Prop./ Partner/ Manager.
- Karbonn Service centre, Shop No.29, Bishnoi Market, Sirsa, through its prop./ partner/ Manager.
- Karbonn Mobiles (Corporate Office), D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, Near D.D. Motors, Delhi- 110020.
..…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.Sandeep Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased mobile of Karboon Model No.MACHONE 530 for an amount of Rs.6800/- from opposite party no.1 on 5.3.2015 and op no.1 had given one year guarantee/ warranty of the same. After sometime of purchase of mobile, it started to create problem i.e. touch pad problem and hang problem. The complainant immediately approached to op no.1 and told about this problem. Then the op no.1 told that this is a minor problem and asked him to approach any service centre of the company. Then on 20.8.2015, complainant visited to op no.2 with above mentioned problems. The op no.2 prepared a service job sheet dated 20.8.2015 and told the complainant to wait for one week. After one week, the complainant again visited to op no.2 but again he was asked to wait for sometime. Since then the complainant is visiting the op no.2 again and again but op no.2 is putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and now it has flatly refused to return the mobile as well as sale price of the mobile. In this way the ops have cheated the complainant by giving him a defective mobile and there is deficiency in service on the part of ops and he has been harassed. Therefore, he is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation besides the costs of the mobile and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2500/-. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, none put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties and as such they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 6.1.2016.
3. The complainant in his exparte evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and bill Ex.C2.
4. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. The complainant in support of his allegations has placed on file his affidavit Ex.C1 and bill dated 5.3.2015 Ex.C2 to prove that mobile in question was purchased from Kamal Mobile Zone, Main Chowk, Kullan (Fatehabad) i.e. op no.1. Except this there is no evidence on file that mobile phone in question was actually deposited with the opposite party no.2 i.e. service centre. The job card allegedly issued by op no.2 has not been duly proved on record by the complainant. So the complainant has failed to prove the allegations of the complaint. Resultantly, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:2.9.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
