Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 375
Instituted on : 10.08.2018.
Decided on : 13.10.2022
Sumesh Kumar aged-45 yrs., R/o 18, Subhash Road, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Karbonn Mobile Company Jaina Marketing and Associates(“Karbonn” Mobile-Phone Company), D-170 and D-180 Okhala Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi, 110020.
- Authorized Service Center of ‘Jaina Marketing & Associates’ i.e. Jai Maa Enterprises, Behind ICICI Bank Ground Floor, Ashoka Plaza, Rohtak.
- Prince Enterprises, Old Gohana Stand, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. M.K.Vaid, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Nikesh Kinra, Advocate for OP No. 1.
Sh. Vijay Kumar, OP No. 3 in person.
OP No. 2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that on 14.08.2017 he had purchased a Karbonn android phone from opposite party no. 3 which was manufactured by opposite party no. 1 vide bill/invoice no. 2767 for an amount of Rs.6400/- with a warranty of one year. Said mobile handset developed problems like stop display automatically and touch function key not working and heating problem etc. just after four days of its purchase. Accordingly the complainant approached OP No.2 but it returned the set after updating its software and told that the said problem is minor and the same will be improve automatically. Thereafter complainant continued to use the said phone but on 29.08.2017, again the handset started giving same problems and the complainant approached OP No.2 who kept the mobile with it and issue a service job-sheet/receipt. But despite repair by the opposite party no. 2 the display touch screen and camera did not work properly. Complainant reported again to opposite party no. 2 on 21.09.2017 and also telephonically approached the company on 11.10.2017, 16.10.2017, 24.10.2017 and 01.11.2017 but no positive response received from the company. As such, complainant received his mobile phone under protest on 17.11.2017. Thereafter on 24.02.2018, the complainant again contacted the opposite party no. 2 and they replaced the camera of the mobile phone but the defect could not be removed properly. Again on 23.07.2018, complainant approached to opposite party no. 2 and this time also they kept his mobile phone for repair vide job sheet no. HRL2ASC029231807050507 dated 23.07.2018. The complainant received his mobile phone on 02.08.2018 but the same did not work properly, and touch function keys also not working, so complainant visited the center of opposite party no. 2, but they flatly refused to do the needful and told to the complainant that they are unable to make this defective mobile phone in order. Despite repeated requests of the complainant and repairs by the opposite party, the defects could not be removed by the opposite parties which shows that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile in question. That the act of opposite parties is highly illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of mobile phone i.e.6400/- plus Rs.100/- (which was illegally received by opposite party No. 2 on 21.09.2017) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till the date of payment, Rs.60,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
2 After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no. 1 appeared and has submitted in its reply that complainant purchased the mobile phone on 14.08.2017 and he approached at the service center of answering opposite party on 29.08.2017 for having same repairs. They duly repaired it and handed over to complainant immediately/within reasonable time. Service center of answering opposite party duly repaired mobile of complainant to his complete satisfaction and complainant has duly accepted the repaired handset without any demur. Hence, present complaint ought to be dismissed as no loss and or damage has been caused to the complainant. Complainant in present complaint made only bare averments with respect to defect/manufacturing defect in mobile handset and failed to produce any document/evidence in relation thereto. It is further submitted that answering opposite party cannot be held responsible for any damage caused due to complainant’s own fault. Answering opposite party through its authorized service centre has duly informed the complainant that the damage is not covered under the warranty. The complainant was even informed the costs of having the same repaired. Under the warranty terms and conditions complainant has to bear cost of repair when damage is not covered under warranty, however complainant refused to pay the legible repairing costs and filed the present complainant. Hence he is not entitled for any relief.
3. Opposite party no. 3 in its reply has submitted that he had only sold the mobile phone in question to the complainant and if any fault arise therein under warranty then only company/opposite party no. 2 are responsible for repair, replacement or refund of payment or for any other appropriate solution etc. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought. However opposite party no. 2 did not appear despite service and as such opposite party no.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.10.2018 of this Commission.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence on dated 05.08.2019. On the other hand, opposite party no. 3 in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex. RW3/A and has closed his evidence on 16.09.2019. However opposite party no. 1 has failed to produce his evidence, as such evidence of opposite party no. 1 was closed by court order on 03.03.2021.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6 In the present case it is not disputed that complainant had purchased the mobile set on 14.08.2017 for a sum of Rs.6400/- from the opposite party No.3, as is proved from the bill Ex.C1. The grievance of the complainant is that the above said mobile phone started creating problem like stop display automatically and touch function keys not working and heating problem, etc., just after four days of the date of the purchase. As per job sheet Ex.C2, the complainant contacted opposite party no.2, they updated the mobile's software by their computer. But on dated 29.08.2017, the display-touch screen of mobile stopped working and on dated 21-09-2017 the respondent no 2 kept the mobile phone for repair and received Rs. 100/- from the complainant, which is proved from document Ex.C3. As per job sheet Ex.C4 dated 23.07.2018, there was problem of camera, audio and touch related problems and the mobile set was within warranty period. As per the complainant he repeatedly visited the office of respondent no.2 for repair of his mobile phone and also approached telephonically to Karbonn company's call centre (Toll free phone No. 18605001492) on dated 11-10 2017. 16-10-2017, 24-10-2017 & 01-11-2017 but his mobile could not be repaired by the opposite parties. On the other hand opposite party No.2 did not appear despite service and remained exparte and thus failed to prove the fact that whether the defects of the mobile phone of the complainant were removed properly or not. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 has only submitted that the service center of answering opposite party duly repaired mobile handset and handed over the same to the complainant within reasonable time. But to prove the same no document has been placed on record by the opposite party no.1. Perusal of the record reveals that the problems in the mobile set appeared just within one month of its purchase. As such it is presumed that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile in question and opposite party No.1 being the manufacturer of the mobile set is liable to refund the price of mobile set to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.6400/-(Rupees six thousand four hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e 10.08.2018 and also to pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite party No.1 at the time of making payment by opposite party no.1
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
13.10.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
................................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
