Delhi

North

CC/34/2014

UTKARSH PANCHAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARBON MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

31 Mar 2015

ORDER

O R D E R

D.R. Tamta, Member

 

The complainant has filed present complaint against O.Ps under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant had purchased a Karbonn A-25 mobile phone bearing IMEI No.911308402238286 from Deepak Electronics, Trinagar, Delhi vide invoice No.1066 dated 15.10.2013 for a sum of Rs. 6,000/-.  It is alleged that after its purchase the said mobile was defective and complainant informed vide Email dated 28.10.2013 to the O.P No.1 about the defects in the mobile set.  It is also informed to the O.P that the complainant could not use the mobile set after 17.10.2013 due to the defects.  It is alleged that on 19.10.2012 complainant received a reply from O.P-1 through email whereby the complainant was advised to visit the nearest authorized service centre.  However the O.P-1 did not give any satisfactory reply.  It is also alleged that the on 21.10.2013 O.P-1 again advised the complainant to visit the same service centre i.e. O.P-2.  It is alleged that complainant as advised visited the given service centre on 24.10.2013 at S.K. Enterprises the O.P-2 herein.  It is also alleged that since the complainant was not properly attended to, therefore, the complainant wrote an email to O.P-1 informing the unsupportive and dissatisfactory attitude of the service centre O.P-2.  It is further alleged that complainant in the said email made a request for refund of his money.  The O.P-1 vide email dated 24.10.2013 acknowledged the grievance of complainant and apologized for inconvenience caused to the complainant.  It is alleged that the complainant thereafter has visited the O.P-2 for more than 10 times but the defects in the mobile remained unsettle till date.  It is alleged that the O.Ps has sold the above said defective mobile phone to the complainant, hence is a deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.  On these facts complainant prays that O.Ps be directed to refund the price of the mobile phone and also to pay compensation as claimed.

2.     O.P-1 appeared and filed the written statement.   It is stated that answering O.P company provides the warranty under the normal use and service i.e. (a) one year for mobile phone devices and (b) six months for batteries, charger and accessories.  It is also stated that the complainant had been purchased the said mobile handset on 15.10.2013 and the said mobile was proper working and complainant was checked prior to purchase of said mobile handset.  It became faulty first time on 26.12.2013 and the same was repaired immediate and duly informed to the complainant to collect the same but complainant refused to collect the mobile handset.  It is denied that the complainant came first time in service centre for repairing the mobile in the month of October, 2013 and O.P fails to provide the service.  It is also alleged that complainant fails to provide any job sheet which can prove that the complainant came on 18.10.2013, 19.10.2013, 21.10.2013 and 24.10.2013 in service centre for repairing purpose.  As per information of O.P when the complainant came to serive centre with disputed mobile, there was no manufacturing problem in disputed mobile.  It is alleged that as per service records of the O.P service centre repaired said mobile and duly informed to the complainant to collect the repaired mobile handset but complainant never came to service centre for collecting the same.  It is also alleged that the problem was occurred due to mishandling by the complainant.  Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

3.     Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as alleged in the complaint and has also proved the documents exhibited as Ex CW-1/A to CW-1/M.  On the other hand Sh. Kapil Kumar of OP-1 has filed his affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P-1.   Written submissions have also been filed by the parties.

4.     We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties.

5.     It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased the mobile handset for a sum of Rs.6,000/-.  The dispute is that the O.P-2 i.e. service centre of the manufacturer company failed to repair the mobile handset in-spite of several complaints.  The contention of O.Ps is that the complainant has not collected the mobile handset after repair by O.P-2, for which they had sent even email to the complainant.  The O.Ps are ready to replace the mobile handset with new handset of same model worth Rs.8,000/-.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that ends of justice will be met if O.Ps are directed to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of same model with fresh warranty.  Accordingly, we direct the O.Ps, to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new handset of same model with fresh warranty within one month of receipt of this order.  Apart from that O.Ps shall jointly and severally pay Rs.750/- to the complainant towards cost and compensation.  Ordered accordingly.  The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order.

        Copy of this order be sent to the parties by Registered post and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.

  Announced this 31^st day of March, 2015.

(BABU LAL)                   (D.R. TAMTA)             (SHAHINA)                                        

President                           Member                    Member