Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/514

Kashmir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karbonn Mobile Company - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

03 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                            Complaint No:  514 of 18.07.2016.                                                                 Date of Decision: 03.03.2017.

 

Kashmir Singh S/o. Nanak Chand, aged 39 years, R/o. Village Naroli, P.O. Bachhwai, Tehsil Thural, District Kangra, H.P. now resident of House No.14949/1, Street No.9, Near Gurdwara Sahib, Parbhat Nagar, Dholewal, Ludhiana Mobile No.98786-65377.                                                                                                                                                ..… Complainant

                                                  Versus

1. Karbonn Company (Mobile), having its Head Office at Jaina Marketing & Associates, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.
2. Karbonn Company (Mobile), having its service centre Shree Ganesh Telecom, G-2, 5024, Opp. Voda Phone, Near Baba Than Singh Chowk, Samrala Road, Ludhiana.
3. Bala Ji Electronics, Opp. Primary School, Rahon Road, Meharban, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties 

                              Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant               :         In person.

For OPs                           :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                 Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by complainant by pleading that he is doing the job of security guard at Ludhiana. He purchased a mobile Karbonn Quattro L50HD for Rs.9,000/- from OP3 on 21.02.2016 through invoice/bill. After three months of this purchase, the said mobile developed technical fault in the Touch back Home Menu Key, due to which he approached OP2. Complainant deposited the mobile set with OP2 and thereafter, he assured as if the defects in the mobile will be removed within 15/20 days. After that period, complainant again approached OP2, who further gave time of 15/20 days for return.  It was disclosed that mobile set was sent to OP1. Thereafter OP1 and OP2 dilly dallying the matter, despite the fact that email and letters were sent to them by complainant. The problem has not been redressed, despite the fact that mobile was within warranty period. Complainant requested Ops to replace the mobile or return the amount, but they refused and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to refund the price amount of Rs.9,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase. In the alternative direction sought for replacement or repair of the mobile in question. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/- even claimed.

2.                 All the Ops are exparte in this case.

3.                 Complainant to prove his case, tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C4 and then closed evidence.

4.                 Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments addressed by complainant and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

5.                 Complainant has produced on record the bill/invoice Ex. C1 for proving that he purchased mobile phone in question with warranty for Rs.9,000/- on 21.02.2016 from OP3. On this bill Ex. C1 itself, it is mentioned that warranty and guarantee valid for service center only, who is OP2. In view of the endorsement of this clause on Ex. C1 itself, it is obvious that OP3, being seller, not to provide the warranty/guarantee for defects in the mobile. Terms and conditions put forth on bill Ex. C1 are binding on the parties including complainant and as such, OP3 is not liable for removing defect because those are to be removed by the service centre at behest of manufacturer i.e. OP1. So complaint against OP1 is not maintainable.

6.                 Complainant has produced on record the job card Ex. C2 dated 04.06.2016 for establishing that he deposited the defective mobile with OP2 on that date due to problem in touch back and home menu key not working. So this documentary proof produced by complainant establishes that mobile phone is lying in deposit with OP2, service centre of OP1. Emails or letters Ex. C3 and Ex. C4 produced to establish that the said mobile set has not been returned even after repair and as such, certainly submission advanced by complainant has force that hand set in question has not been returned to him. Reply to these emails and letters Ex. C3 and Ex. C4 has not been sent by OP1 and OP2 or any of them to complainant. Question of retention of mobile set by OP2 on behalf of OP1  from 04.06.2016 till today arises only if there is defect of irreparable nature in the mobile set in question. In view of this, OP1 and OP2 liable to replace the mobile set (already lying deposited with OP2) with a new one with warranty for unexpired period of 7 months within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of this order. As response to letters even not given by Ops and as such, complainant certainly suffered mental harassment and agony. Due to non giving of any response by OP1 and OP2, complainant has to file this complaint by bearing litigation expenses and as such, certainly complainant is entitled for compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.

7.                 As a sequel of above discussion, complaint against OP3 dismissed, but same is allowed against OP1 and OP 2 with directions to them to replace the old mobile set (already lying with OP2) with new one with warranty of unexpired period of seven months within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, old mobile will be retained by OP1 and OP2. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP1 and OP2, whose liability held as joint and several. Payment of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                                         (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                      (G.K. Dhir)

                                         Member                                              President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:03.03.2017.

Gobind Ram.