Haryana

Ambala

CC/138/2018

Hardik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karbonn Authorised Service Center - Opp.Party(s)

Varun Kumar Singla

20 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.: 138 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution         :   01.05.2018.

                                                          Date of decision   :   27.08.2019.

 

Hardik s/o Shri Daya Ram, r/o Daya Rama Colony, Railway Road, Taraori at present residing at Ashwani Goel, VPO Barara, near Arya School, Tehsil Barara, Distt. Ambala.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. Karbonn Authorized Service Centre, Opp. Ashoka Dairy, Ambala Cantt. through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Jaina Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110020 (India), through its Chairman/Managing Director.

 

             ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Shri V.K. Singla, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Sandeep Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

 

ORDER:     SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund the cost of the mobile phone.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges.
   382.  

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Karbonn mobile phone Model Machone 8GB, bearing IEMI Nos.911430802282563 & 911430802182565 for Rs.5,635/-, vide Invoice No.S3551B/1516/40104. The said phone worked properly for sometime and in the month of October 2015, it started giving problems. As such, he contacted the OP No.1 i.e. service centre of OP No.2, who checked the phone and retained it for repair and given the same to him after a month. Thereafter, again the mobile phone started giving problem as its network was used to go of its own and phone used to shut down of its own. The complainant again contacted the OP No.1 on 09.02.2016, who again retained it for repair. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint against the OPs and in the same, OPs suffered a statement for giving new mobile phone to him within a month and said complaint has been decided by this Hon’ble Forum on 13.12.2016. The new mobile model Quatro L50 HD was given to him after a delay of nine months on 02.05.2017. The said phone also worked properly for one month and thereafter, touch screen was not functioning properly and as such, he was not able to use the said phone properly. He again contacted the OP No.1 for repair of the phone, but its official refused to repair the same and demanded Rs.1500/- for repair. Thereafter, he filed the execution application before this Forum, which was withdrawn by his counsel for filing the fresh complaint. Due to manufacturing defect, the mobile in question became defective within warranty period and the OPs failed to rectify its defect, therefore, they have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; complaint is bad for non-joinder; mis-joinder of the necessary parties and concealment of true & material facts. On merits, it is stated that the true facts are that the complainant purchased the Karbonn mobile and there was some problem in it. After filing the complaint, the mobile was replaced by them, but thereafter, till today, he has not approached the OPs. As such, the present complaint is not maintainable and is an abuse of process of law. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with an intention to harass the OPs and to get the new mobile set from the OPs. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the present complaint, may be dismissed with costs.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has not filed any evidence, rather made a statement that the written version filed by the OPs, may be read as evidence of the OPs.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file and also the written arguments alongwith case laws filed by the learned counsel for the complainant.

5.                 The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased a mobile phone for Rs.5,635/-, which became defective and the OPs failed to resolve his grievance. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint against the OPs, as such, the OPs provided him a new mobile phone on 02.05.2017. But the said phone was also not worked properly and the OPs could not rectify the defect, therefore, they have committed deficiency in service. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has argued that mobile set purchased by the complainant was having some problem, therefore, the OPs replaced the same with new one, but thereafter, till today, the complainant has not approached the OPs. There is no deficiency on the part of the OPs and the present complaint may be dismissed with costs. With the written argument, the complainant placed on record copy of Retail Invoice of mobile in question, from which, it is evident that he had purchased the mobile set on 20.07.2015 for Rs.5635/-. On the written request of the complainant, the mobile in question was sent to Government ITI, Ambala, for its inspection and in this regard, report was received. From the perusal of said report, it is clear that the said report is not favouring to any of the party of the present case. To support his case, the complainant produced his affidavit alongwith supporting documents, whereas, on the other hand, the OPs had not produced any evidence to support their contentions. Therefore, the contention of the complainant remained unrebutted. In his complaint, the complainant demanded the cost of the mobile set. In this regard, we derive support from the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, in the case of Sony Ericsson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal, 2008 (1) CLT, 15, wherein, it has been held that

                   “Defective handset- Replaced twice-It continued giving trouble-                  Petitioner ready to change the same but respondent demanded                         refund of money- Direction by the State Commission for refund of                   money with interest @6% p.a. upheld.”

6.                Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down by the superior Fora in the aforesaid case and the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the second mobile set provided by the OPs was also defective one and the OPs have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant, therefore, the OPs are liable to refund the cost of the mobile in question alongwith compensation and litigation charges.

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs in the following manner:-

1. To refund Rs.5,635/-, the cost of the mobile in question to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation charges.

 

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly & severally within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :27.08.2019.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)       (Ruby Sharma)                  (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                            Member                            President