Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/531/2015

Basant Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karbonn Customer Care Services - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj Adv.

17 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	531/2015
Date of Institution	:	22.09.2015
Date of Decision	:	17.12.2015

 

                                               

                                                         

Basant Kumar s/o Sita Ram r/o H.No.249, Indira Colony, Mani Majra, Chandigarh

                             ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.      Karbonn Customer Care Services, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 through its M.D.
2.      Raju Traders, SCF No.212, Near Local Bus Stand Manimajra, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Authorized Representative.
3.      Davindra Communication, Shop No.2212/1, Pipliwala Town Manimajra, Chandigarh through its Manager.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the complainant

                   OPs exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile handset make Karbonn A-29  from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 04.02.2015 for Rs.6500/- (Annexure C-1), having warranty of one year.  According to the complainant, the same started giving problem on the very day and the same was got repaired but no job sheet was issued.  It has been averred that the mobile handset in question became dead and the power could not be started on. He approached OP No.3 and handed over the mobile handset to it for repairs vide job sheet dated 04.07.2015 (Annexure C-2). Thereafter he made repeated visits to OP No.3 to collect the mobile phone but till date neither the phone has been repaired nor replaced.  According to the complainant, the date of purchase has been mentioned as 18.12.2014 raising doubts in his mind that the mobile handset sold to him might be second hand or used one whereas the invoice is dated 04.02.2015. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           Despite due service through registered post, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.10.2015.
3.           Notice sent for the service of OP No.1 was received back with the report of refusal. Since refusal was a good service, and none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 on the date fixed, therefore vide order dated 09.12.2015, it was proceeded against exparte. 
4.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
5.           In his exparte evidence, the complainant has also placed on record the documents (Annexures C-1 and C-2) in support of the averments made in the complaint. Annexure C-1 is the copy of the invoice vide which he purchased the mobile in question from OP No.1 for Rs.6,500/-.  Annexure C-2 is a copy of the job sheet dated 04.07.2015 wherein under the column of “voice of customer” it has been mentioned as “No Power on”.   Besides this, the complainant has also placed on record his detailed affidavit reiterating the averments as made in the complaint. The OPs have failed to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant within the warranty period despite his repeated requests, which itself sufficient to conclude that the mobile phone in question is suffering from some major defect. The Opposite Parties despite due service did not turn up to contest the case and, as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either it admits the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter.   Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.  As such, the same are accepted as correct and the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs is proved. 
6.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under ;-

1. To refund Rs.6,500/- i.e. the price of the product in question to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.2,500/-  as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

7.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17.12.2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER