Delhi

East Delhi

CC/33/2014

MANPREET - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARBONN MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jan 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                                                 CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC NO.33/14

IN THE MATTER OF:
 

MANPREET SINGH SURI

A-6/24 LAL QUARTER

KRISHNA NAGAR

DELHI-110051

 

Complainant

Vs

1. THE MOBILE MART

R-52 SHAKAR PUR,

VIKAS MARG,

NEW METRO PILLAR NO.44

DELHI-110092

 

 

2. KARBONN MOBILES

D-170, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-1

NEW DELHI-110020

 

 

3. KARBONN AUTHORIZED SERVICE CNETER,

CELL CARE D-30,

2.  

OLD PATPARGANJ ROAD,

OPP JAIN MANDIR,

NIRMAN VIHAR,

SHAKKARPUR, DELHI.

 

 

Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                      Date of Admission - 15/01/2014

                                                                                    Date of Order          - 27/01/2016

 

ORDER

SH. N. A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the Complainant purchased one Karbonn Mobile bearing Model No. A-2 IMEI No. 911256351349002 and 911256351349010 on dated 11/04/2013 for a sum of Rs.4,950/- from the Respondent. It was carrying one year warranty. After two months of its purchase it started malfunctioning. The problem of touch screen, low battery backup, and it used to switch of automatically. In the month of July 2013 he was directed to approach Respondent No.3. On 10/07/2013 his handset was taken by the Respondent. He was asked to wait outside the service center for about 1 ½ hours, thereafter it was returned claiming that the software has been upgraded and it will work properly. On the same day Complainant noted that the handset was in the worse condition, touch screen was irresponsive. Again he approached Respondent no.3 on 20/08/2013 and handset was handed over, again he was asked to wait 1 ½ hours and it was returned. He made a request to refund the money. It was given for repair on 06/09/2013 on 04/01/2014 he was told that the charging slot is broken he complaint about it to the Respondents and he was misbehaved. In these circumstances the Complainant has prayed for the cost of the handset, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigations.

            Respondent No.2 filed their reply wherein it is alleged that the warranty under the normal use and service i.e one year for mobile phone device and six months for the batteries. The complaint was reported on 04/01/2014 i.e. about 8 ½ months after this purchase that show there was no manufacturing defect. The Complainant has alleged defect in Karbonn A-2. The allegation of the Complainant for giving to the service centre for repairing more than one times is denied and it is only on 04/01/2014 that mobile was repaired on the same date and it was received by the Complainant on the same date. There was no manufacturing problem in the handset and the problem was due to mishandling by the Complainant. He has filed the false fabricated complaint.

            Both the parties have filed on record their evidence in the form of Affidavit.

            Heard and perused the record.

            This fact is not in dispute that the handset in question was purchased on 11/04/2013 and it was taken to the service centre on 04/01/2014 for twin complaint, one for charging and second for touch pad faulty. The repair was carried out and no amounts were charged from the Complainant and the handset was returned the very same day. The Complainant has alleged that first complaint lodged is just after a month in July 2013 and he visited Respondent service center on 10/07/2013, it was repaired and returned, again on 20/08/2013 and 06/09/2013 but there is no documentary proof that it was ever taken to the Respondents for getting it repaired. It has been argued on behalf of the Respondent that there is no reason if the handset was taken for repair for not issuing the Job sheet even if it was returned the very same day. The Job sheet on record dated 04/01/2014 confirms this fact that the hand set was repaired same day and was returned to the complainant immediately. The burden lies upon the Complainant to prove that he reported any such defects on the date mentioned in the complaint. There is no cogent evidence on record Respondent on oath has denied such visit. In the absence of any such evidence, his allegations cannot be accepted. As per allegations problem occurred on 10/07/2013 after three months of its purchase which also proves that the handset was not suffering from any manufacturing defects. Job sheet dated 04/01/2014 clearly shows that the problem reported was rectified by the Respondent.

            In these circumstances it cannot be accepted that the respondent has not provided service under the period of warranty to the Complainant, since the hand set was not suffering from any manufacturing defects and it has given hestle free service for about 9 months and it was repaired during the warranty period free of cost. The Respondent cannot be said to be deficient in providing the service. We don’t find any merit in this complaint, dismissed.  

Copy of this order be provided to both the parties.

 

 

(DR.P.N.TIWARI)                        (POONAM MALHOTRA)                                (N.A.ZAIDI)                                                                                                                                                    MEMBER                                       MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT