Haryana

StateCommission

A/306/2015

AMIT KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARBANN MOBILE & OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

GURVINDER SINGH

01 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      306 of 2015

Date of Institution:      31.03.2015

Date of Decision :       01.12.2015

 

Amit Kumar s/o Sh. Leela Ram, Resident of House No.14, Prakash Vihar, Bori Wali Gali, Palwal-121102.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Manager, Karbonn Mobile, D-170 Okhla Industries Area Ph-1, near DD Motors, New Delhi-110020.

2.      Karbonn Mobile, 39/13, Off 7^th Main, HAL, 2^nd Stage Appareddy Palya, Indira Nagar, Bangalore – 560038.

3.      Proprietor of Sumit Mobile Solution Shop No.4 Agra Chowk New Colony Road, near Anupam Jeweller Gali No.3, Palwal.

4.      Mr. Mohan, Proprietor of HHH Mobile World, Sale Service Repair Accessories, Jawahar Nagar, Camp Market, Palwal-121102.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               None for appellant.

                             Shri Ankush Gupta, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The un-successful complainant is in appeal against the order dated February 23^rd, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint No.137 of 2014 was dismissed.

2.      Amit Kumar-complainant/appellant purchased a mobile set of Karbonn-A 26 make from HHH Mobile World-opposite party No.4 for an amount of Rs.7,000/-, vide receipt Annexure-1. It was found to be defective. The complainant gave the mobile set to Sumit Mobile Solution-opposite party No.3 for repair but since the defective part of the mobile was not available in the market, the mobile set was sent to the manufacturing company for replacement.

3.      Virender Singh-representative of opposite parties No.1 & 3 made a statement before the District Forum that they were ready to give a new mobile set to the complainant and had brought the new mobile set.  The complainant did not accept the new mobile set rather demanded compensation for mental agony and harassment because there was delay on the part of the opposite parties to give him the new mobile set.  Since the opposite parties were ready to replace the mobile set with the new one and the same was also brought before the District Forum but the complainant did not accept the same. So, he was not entitled for any compensation and the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint. 

4.      Hence, finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed. 

 

Announced 01.12.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL