Haryana

Ambala

CC/323/2015

Sonu Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karbon Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Rajpoot

08 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                                                   Complaint case no.         : 323 of 2015

                                                                   Date of Institution          : 17.11.2015        

                                                                   Date of decision    :  08.11.2016

Sonu Verma son of Sh. Gulshan Kumar Verma 75/1202, Baldev Nagar, Ambala Nagar.

……. Complainant.

1.       Karbon Karboonn Mobiles # 39/13, off 7^th Main, HAL 2^nd Stage Appareddy    

          Palya, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560038 through its authorized signatory.

2.       M/s Mobi Tech, through its authorized service Centre authorized by the   opposite party no. 1, cross Road no. 10, Mochi Mandi, Sardar Bazar, Nagar         Ashoka Dairy, Ambala Cantt through its authorized signatory.

3.       Amazon Service, registered office address, Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1,     Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Alleshwaram.

 ….…. Respondents.

Complaint U/s 12 of the C.P. Act.

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

Present:        Complainant in person.

                   Sh. Sandeep Kashyap, counsel for the Ops no. 1 and 2.

                   Op no. 3 already given up v.o.d. 08.02.2016.

ORDER:

                    In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Mobile set model Karbonn Titanium Machfive (Silver) bearing EMI no. IME no. 911464850212263 and IMEI no. 911464850262268 from the respondent no. 3 on 04.09.2015 in a sum of Rs. 6049/-. The mobile phone was having having 1 year warranty.  It has been submitted that the mobile phone from its very beginning started giving problems i.e. camera and hanging problem. So, complainant got checked the mobile set from OP no. 2 –service centre of OP who deposited the mobile phone and said to collect the mobile phone on next day and issued job slip but neither the said mobile phone was repaired nor returned by the respondents till today despite several requests.   Hence, the present complaint.

2                 Upon notice, Ops no. 1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement submitting that OP no. 2 in this regard had issued the job-sheet to the complainant and OP no. 2 had rectified the problem in mobile phone free of costs as mobile was in warranty and information to the rectification of mobile was given to the complainant by telephonically by the worker as well as by owner of OP no. 2 but the complainant did not come for collecting the mobile rather he stated to the OP no. 2 that he had already filed the present complainant against answering respondents and there was not manufacturing defect in the mobile set.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-4 and close his evidence. To prove his version Ops no. 1 and 2 tendered his affidavit as Annexure RX along with documents as annexure R-1. OP no. 3 already given up v.o.d. 08.02.2016. Separate statement of complainant to this effect has been recorded.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file.  It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone in question on 04.09.2015 from the OP and  its IMEI not found in system & camera also not working properly. The complainant had deposited the mobile phone to the service centre i.e. OP no. 2 on 24.09.2015. Present complaint has been instituted in the Forum on 17.11.2015 and upon notice, OP company put in appearance before the Forum on 10.12.2015.  Complainant has drawn our attention towards letter dated 06.02.2016 (Annexure C-3) issued by OP service centre requesting him to collect the mobile set from their service centre which is lying with them in working  condition  and pointed out that  the letter by OP service centre has been issued to him after  filing of the present complaint on 17.11.2015 and receiving notice by them which itself speaks deficiency as well as negligence in service on the part of Ops.  The complainant further submitted that the mobile phone in question is having some inherent problem so, he has purchased  a new mobile set  on 09.02.2016 worth Rs.10999/- and thus he does not require the present defective mobile set and  requested for refund of the amount of Rs.5999/-.

                   In view of the above discussion, we have arrived to the conclusion that if the Ops had bonafide intention to handover the mobile set to the complainant after its proper repair then they would have returned the same to the complainant as early as possible from deposit of the mobile set with the service centre or prior to institution of the present complaint.  Accordingly,  we find that the Ops are negligent and deficient in providing proper services to the complainant and thus allow the present complaint directing the Ops to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To refund Rs.5999/- to the complainant within stipulated period failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till actual realization.

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :08.11.2016                                              Sd/-

                                                                              (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                       Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member