Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/335

Mandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karbon Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.Sikka ADv.

23 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 335 of 20.05.2015

Date of Decision            :   23.11.2016

Mandeep Singh son of Gurwinder Singh, presently residing House No.554, Rinku Welding Works, Near OBC Bank, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Ravinder Mobile, G.T.Road, Gurudwara Ramgharia Building, Near National Janj Ghar, Book Market, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana (through its Proprietor/Partner).

2.Trade Bazar Hometech Ventures LLP, 7 Prathmesh Complex, Building No.H, Opp, Vatika Restaurant Mumbai-Nasik Highway 3, Bhiwandi Bye-Pass Road, Bhiwandi-421302 (Maharashtra) through its authorized signatory.

3.Karbon Mobile, Corporate Office, #39/13, 7^th Main Hall 2^nd Stage, Apparedy Indera Nagar, Bangalore-560038(through its M.D.)

…Opposite parties 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS.VINOD BALA, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.G.S.Sikka, Advocate         

For OP1 and OP2          :         Ex-parte

For OP3                         :         Sh.Yash Paul, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant purchased one mobile set of Karbon Titanium S9 (Pearl White) bearing IMEI No.911333000149511 and 911333000149529 from Op2 on online vide invoice No.MHBOMI-137053881-3647 dated 25.1.2014 for consideration of Rs.11,990/- by paying the amount to OP2. At the time of purchase, it was put on website shared by OP2 and OP3 that product is of an excellent quality and guaranty on the product will be of one year. Few days after purchase of the mobile set in question, the same started giving trouble because it was not working properly. Touch screen was even not working properly. Despite pointing out these defects during working and functioning of mobile, to the authorized repair centre of OP1 on 24.9.2014, but the defects were not removed. Complainant visited OP1, the repair centre and authorized service centre of OP2 and OP3 many times, but they expressed inability to rectify the defect. Then complainant approached Op1 through emails dated 3.12.2014, 4.12.2014, 5.12.2014, 12.12.2014, 16.12.2014 and 17.12.2014. Despite these emails, defect remains unattended and as such, complaint filed after serving legal notice dated 31.3.2015 through counsel by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Prayer made for directing Ops to replace the mobile set in question with new one and extend the guaranty period of one year from the date of delivery of new mobile. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.15,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- as well as compensation for loss in business of amount of Rs.10,000/- claimed. Prayer even made for return of the price of the mobile set along with interest @24% from the date of purchase till actual payment.

2.                Op1 and OP2 are ex-parte in this case.

3.                OP3 filed written statement by pleading interalia as if the complaint is not maintainable because there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP3, particularly when the answering respondent through counsel suffered statement for expressing readiness to hand over a new mobile set to the complainant of same   price, within 15 days and complainant refused to accept the said offer. It is claimed that OP3 is still ready to hand over a new mobile set to the complainant with the same price. Allegation regarding purchase of the mobile set not denied, but each and every other allegations of complaint denied by praying for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1 along with documents CW2 to Ex.CW12 and then, his counsel closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP3 failed to produce any evidence, despite grant of chance and as such, evidence of Op3 was closed by order.

6.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

7.                 Counsel for OP3 suffered statement on 23.11.2015 qua offer of providing fresh mobile set of the same value of Rs.11,990/- to the complainant within 15 days from that date. That offer made through recorded statement of 23.11.2015 was not accepted because counsel for the complainant stated at bar on 9.12.2015 that refund of the full price amount required. That offer of refund of full price amount was not acceptable to the counsel for OP3 and that is why, written statement by OP3 was filed on 29.2.2016. In view of offer given by counsel for OP3, it is obvious that OP3 is still ready and willing to replace the mobile set in question with new one of worth of Rs.11,990/-. Op3 is the manufacturer, whereas, OP1 is the dealer. Copy of invoice Ex.CW1 has been produced to show that mobile in question purchased for Rs.11,990/- on 25.1.2014 through online transaction. Copy of warranty card even has been produced to show the date of purchase is 25.1.2014. Reminder Ex.CW2 dated 3.12.2014 was issued by the complainant for calling upon Ops to provide the information qua solving of the problem in the purchased mobile set. That problem faced since from 24.9.2014 are contents of Ex.CW2 as well as of annexure1A. Ex.CW3 to Ex.CW8 are the reminders sent through emails for getting the problem solved and to know about what action has been taken and as such, it is obvious    that problem in mobile phone developed w.e.f.24.9.2014 i.e. after use of the mobile phone for 8 months. As that problem has not been rectified and as such, legal notice Ex.CW9 through postal receipts Ex.CW10 to Ex.CW12 was served on Ops. In view of issue of this notice and reminders and non receipt of the reply by the complainant from Ops, it is obvious that the problem of the complainant was not redressed until giving of offer in this Forum on 23.11.2015, resulting in mental harassment and agony of the complainant.

8.                As per clause 2 of terms and conditions contained in Customer receipt annexure-1A, repaired/replaced product will be warranted for balance of the original warranty period. That warranty as per the case of the complainant was for one year and as such, the same was to lapse on 24.1.2015. However, defect pointed out w.e.f.24.9.2014 and as such, balance period of warranty was of 4 months. So, replaced product will be warranted for balance period of 4 months only as per the terms and conditions contained in Annexure-1A, the customer receipt. However, counsel for the complainant vehemently contends that complainant entitled for refund of the price, but that submission of counsel for complainant has no force because clause 1 of terms and conditions contained in customer receipt annexure-1A, provides that the authorized service network may repair or replace any defective product or parts thereof with new or factory rebuilt replacement items. As per clause 3 of Annexure-1A, all replaced parts, boards or equipment, will become property of manufacturer. The maximum value of claims will be limited to the maximum retail price of the product prevailing at the time of purchase is also contained in customer receipt Annexure-1A. So if at all the new handset to be got by the complainant in replacement, then the same will be of equal worth, due to which, it has to be held that offer of replacement has been genuinely put forth as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. In view of genuine offer put forth by the counsel for the OP3, complainant entitled for lesser litigation costs. Today, Sh.Yash Paul, Advocate representing OP3 suffered recorded statement that old defective mobile set is still lying in the custody of service centre which belongs to OP3. In view of the suffered statement, now dispute does not remain as to where the defective mobile set lying. As the defective mobile set lying with the service centre of OP3 and as such, complainant need not deposit anything with Ops, but OP3 will replace the mobile set in question with fresh one of worth equal to paid price of Rs.11,900/-.

9.                As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OP3 will replace the mobile set in question with fresh one of worth of Rs.11,990/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only), but litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP3. Compliance of these directions be made by OP3 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Warranty of 4 months will be provided by OP3 on the replaced mobile set. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

10.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                                       (G.K. Dhir)

                                      Member                                                President

Announced in Open Forum                                                          Dated:23.11.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.