Punjab

Jalandhar

CC/428/2014

Anil Kumar C/o Lovely Professional University - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karbonn Mobile Company - Opp.Party(s)

09 Apr 2015

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Ladowali Road, District Administrative Complex,
2nd Floor, Room No - 217
JALANDHAR
(PUNJAB)
 
Complaint Case No. CC/428/2014
 
1. Anil Kumar C/o Lovely Professional University
R/o Village Dhar,P.O. Talwara
Hoshiarpur
Punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Karbonn Mobile Company
D-170,Near DD Motors,Okhala Industrial Area,Phase-I,Delhi-110020
2. Harsehaj Communications
Bhutani Hospital,near Roto Auto,ST Hospital,Jalandhar
3. M/s Chadha Mobile House Pvt. Ltd.
Phagwara Gate,Near Bhagat Singh Chowk,Jalandhar
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Jaspal Singh Bhatia PRESIDENT
  Jyotsna Thatai MEMBER
  Parminder Sharma MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
Complainant in person.
 
For the Opp. Party:
Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
Opposite party No.3 exparte.
 
ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.428 of 2014

Date of Instt. 02.12.2014

Date of Decision :09.04.2015

Anil Kumar C/o Lovely Professional University, R/o Village Dhar P.O. Talwara District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

..........Complainant

Versus

  1.   Karbonn Mobile Company, D-170, Near DD Motors, Okhala Industrial Area Phase-I, Delhi-110020.

2. Hansehaj Communication, Bhutani Hospita, Near Roto Auto, ST Hospital, Jalandhar (authorized service centre).

3. M/s Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

 

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Opposite party No.3 exparte.

 

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that he purchased the Karboon mobile from Chadha Mobile House on 13.11.2013. After about three months, its touch stop working and then he went to opposite party No.3 for replacement of the product during the guarantee/warranty period but it did not replace the mobile handset and sent it to authorized service centre i.e opposite party No.2. On 20.3.2014 he went to the service centre and deposited the mobile with service centre for rectification of the fault vide job sheet. They asked him to come after a week to take back the mobile. It is further alleged that inspite of repeated visits, they return him the broken screen mobile on 5.4.2014 and when he objected, they again deposited it. On 21.8.2014 service centre called him to take mobile and when he went to take back the mobile the same problem was there. He deposited the mobile with the service centre on 16.9.2014 vide job sheet, which is attached. He visited the service centre on 2-3 occasions but they did not respond. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for refund of the price of the product beside compensation.

2. Upon notice opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written reply, inter-alia, pleading that as per information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant has purchased the handset on 13.11.2013 and from that date the handset was working properly and there was no fault in the handset. On 5.4.2014, the complainant visited the opposite party No.2 and told that there was problem of touch in the handset and the opposite party No.2 told that the handset will be sent to the opposite party No.1 and the same will be returned after 20 to 30 days and the complainant agreed for the same and booked his handset and after 25 days, the opposite party No.2 received the handset from opposite party No.1 and called the complainant to collect his handset and the complainant on 17.5.2014 visited the office of opposite party No.2 and received the handset in OK condition and thereafter on 16.9.2014, the complainant again visited the opposite party No.2 with the same problem and when the engineer checked the handset and told that there is no problem in handset and handset was in OK condition but the complainant was very eager to book his handset and the opposite party No.2 booked the handset and even again changed the display of the handset and called the complainant several times to collect the handset but the complainant never turned back to receive the handset. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite party No.3 did not appear inspite of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and evidence of opposite parties No.1 & 2 closed by order.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 2.

7. The complainant purchased the handset in question from opposite party No.3 vide retail invoice dated 13.11.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.6100/-. According to the complainant, soon after purchase a defect of touch screen arose in his mobile handset and he deposited the mobile handset with service centre vide job sheet and when he received back the handset, the same problem was there and thereafter he again deposited the handset with the service centre i.e opposite party No.2 but till date they have not responded inspite of various visits. The complainant has placed on record service job sheets Ex.C2 to Ex.C4. In support of his version, he has also tendered his affidavit Ex.CB in this regard. According to the opposite parties No.1 and 2, the mobile handset is lying in repaired condition but the complainant has not turned back to receive the same. In all job sheets Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 touch problem is mentioned. The complainant has to visit the service centre repeatedly for rectification of the above said defect. The mobile handset is lying with service centre. Although according to the opposite parties No.1 & 2 the same is lying in fully repaired condition. However, the complainant has to face in convenience and harassment due to repeated visits to the service centre. He was also deprived of the use of the handset during the period it remained with service centre.

8. So in the above circumstances, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed to give the mobile handset in question in fully repaired condition to the complainant free of any charge immediately on receipt of copy of this order and in case the same has not been repaired then to refund its price to him. The complainant is also awarded Rs.2500/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

 

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

09.04.2015 Member Member President

 

 
 
 
 
 
[ Jaspal Singh Bhatia]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Jyotsna Thatai]
MEMBER
 
[ Parminder Sharma]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.