Delhi

East Delhi

CC/596/2014

AMRIT MANGA - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARBOMN MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

02 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 596/14

 

Shri Amrit Monga

Jubilant Life Sciences Limited

Plot-1A, Sector-16A

Noida - 201301                                                            …….Complainant

Vs.

1. Karbonn Mobile India Private Limited

Private Lmited Company (CIN-U32109DL2009PTC194165)

D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I

New Delhi-110020

 

2. Cell Care – Karbonn Mobile Service Center

Contact Person: Gaurav Kharbanda (Manager)

D-30, 2^nd Floor, Dayanand Block

Old Patparganj Road, Opp. Jain Mandir

Nirman Vihar, Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092                           ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 30.07.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 02.05.2017

Judgment Passed on: 03.05.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Amrit Monga against Karbonn Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and Cell Care – Karbonn Mobile Service Centre (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a mobile phone model Karbonn A27 Retine, IMEI No. 911304200026346/ 911304200026353 on 27.03.2013 from M/s. Orange Tel, A-147, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur for a sum of Rs. 8,500/-.   Within a month from the date of purchase, the mobile started problem.  The complainant approached to Karbonn’s authorized service centre at Laxmi Nagar.  They formatted the phone and assured that those defects will not repeat. 

          Again after a period of one and half months, the same problem started.  The complainant again visited the same service centre.  Service centre again formatted the phone and assured that this problem will not occur in the phone in future.  On 8^th March 2014 the complainant again went to Karbonn’s service centre, which was shifted to Cellcare in Shakarpur and requested them to send the phone at Karbonn head office for repair.  The complainant approached Karbonn directly through email and received the reply saying that please contact Karbonn Service Centre.  Warranty of the phone was getting over on 28.03.2014. 

          It is stated that on 29.03.2014 the complainant got the delivery of the repaired phone from Cellcare, the service centre, but within two hours the same problem started in the phone.  He contacted Mr. Gaurav from Cellcare on the same day and informed him about the defects.   Mr. Gaurav asked the complainant to come on 31^st of March and give the phone back to be sent to Karbonn for repair.  On 31.03.2014,       Mr. Gaurav refused to take the phone stating that the warranty of the phone was over and the phone was damaged.

          It is further stated that on 28.05.2014 the phone of the complainant got blasted in the evening while it was put on charging and as a result the inside body of the phone got melted.  The complainant informed this incidence to Karbonn Mobiles through email and was offered replacement of the said mobile.  The complainant asked for assurance that there will be no risk of blast and defects in the new phone which OP ignored.  Thus, the complainant prayed for direction to OP to refund Rs. 8,500/-, the costs of mobile; Rs. 14,00,000/- compensation on account of mental disturbance and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

3.       In the WS, filed on behalf of Karbonn Mobile India Private Limited (OP-1), it is stated that there was no manufacturing defect.  They have denied that the complainant came to the service centre for repairing the mobile on 08.03.2014 and OP took long time to repair the mobile.  They delivered the mobile after repairing to OP-2.  OP-2 informed the complainant to collect the repaired mobile handset.  There was no manufacturing defect, when the complainant came to the service centre.  He received the handset from service centre and was enjoying with it and has created a false story.  Other facts have also been denied.

          No WS has been filed by OP-2.

4.       No evidence has been filed on behalf of the complainant.

          Karbonn Mobile India Private Limited (OP-1) have examined   Shri Kapil Kumar who have deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS.

5.       We have perused the material placed on record as neither the complainant nor the OP appeared to argue.  From the documents placed on record, it is noticed that the complainant have not filed his evidence by way of affidavit.  Since he has not filed his evidence on affidavit, the evidence filed on behalf of Karbonn Mobile India Private Limited (OP-1) cannot be disputed. 

          In the absence of evidence of the complainant, the complaint cannot be said to be proved.  Therefore, his complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member 

 

           

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                      President