Punjab

Sangrur

CC/636/2014

Harwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karbonn Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri K.S. Toor

07 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    636

                                                Instituted on:      01.12.2014

                                                Decided on:       07.04.2015

 

Harwinder Singh son of Shri Gurmail Singh, resident of Village Bhindran, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Karbonn Company Limited, D-170, Okhla, Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110 020 through its Managing Director.

2.             Karbonn authorised service centre, Chhabra Communication, Dhuri Gate, Sangrur through its authorised signatory.

3.             Gupta Radio Service Outside Sunami Gate, Roxy Road, Sangrur through its proprietor/partner.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant    :               Shri K.S.Toor, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :               Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.

For OP No.3              :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Harwinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one mobile phone Karboon S-1 Titanum bearing IMEI no.911305351164091 and 911305351164109 from OP number 1 on 3.9.2013 for Rs.7600/- vide bill number 280 dated 3.9.2013. It is further averred that  OP number 3 gave a warranty of one year for the mobile said in question against any defects.  The grievance of the complainant is that in the month of August, 2014, the mobile set in question suffered from the problem of touch panel and the complainant immediately approached OP number 3, who told to approach the OP number 2, as such the complainant approached OP number 2, who kept the mobile set in question and advised to take back after 2/3 days.  It is further averred that OP number 2 issued a job card dated 8.8.2014 to the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant approached OP number 2 on 11.8.2014 for taking back the mobile set in question, but the same was not returned.  Thereafter the complainant approached OP number 2 so many times for getting the mobile set in question, but in the last, the OP number 2 told that the mobile set is not repairable, as such the complainant requested OPs to replace the mobile set with a  new one. It is further averred in the complaint that the mobile set is lying with OP number 2 since 8.8.2014.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs the complainant has prayed that OPs be directed to refund to the complainant the price of the mobile set in question i.e. Rs.7600/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 3 was  proceeded exparte.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has suppressed the material facts. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question. It is also admitted that the complainant approached OP number 2 for defect in mobile touch panel and the mobile set in question was sent to the company for repair.  Since the defect in mobile set in question was not curable, as such the company sent a new mobile set model A-21 Plus against the defective mobile set in question, as the model of defective mobile was not available.  It is stated that the OPs are still ready to give the new mobile set against the defective mobile set. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-2 copy of the bill, Ex.C-3 copy of job card, Ex.C-4 copy of service job sheet and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             A bare perusal of the file clearly reveals that OP number 3 did not appear despite service and choose to remain exparte.  Ex.C-2 is a copy of the bill issued by OP number 3 which clearly shows that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question on 3.9.2013 by paying an amount of Rs.7600/-.  Ex.C-4 is the copy of job sheet whereby the mobile in question was handed over to OP number 2.  The learned counsel for the complainant has alleged that since the mobile set in question was having the problem of touch panel, as such the complainant approached OP number 2, but the OP number 2 found that the mobile in set was not repairable, as such, the Op number 2 offered a new mobile set A-21, as the new mobile set in question i.e. purchased by the complainant was not available in the stock of the OPs number 1 and 2.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the Ops failed to even offer the new mobile set of same model which was earlier purchased by the complainant on 3.9.2013. 

 

7.             In the present case, it is admitted fact that the mobile set model S-1 Titanium earlier sold to the complainant was defective one which was beyond repairs and as such the Ops offered another new mobile set A-21 in replacement, which was not acceptable to the complainant.  In the circumstances of the case, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and we further find that the ends of justice would be met if the Ops are directed to refund to the complainant the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.7600/-subject to returning of the battery and back cover of the mobile set as admittedly the same is with the complainant as is evident from the copy of job sheet, Ex.C-4.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.7600/- subject to returning of the battery, back cover of the mobile set and other accessories by the complainant to the OPs.  The OPs number 1 and 2 are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3000/- on account of compensation for mental tension and litigation expenses.

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 7, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member