BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
CC No: 723 of 20.10.2014
Date of Decision: 14.01.2015
Raman Jain s/o Sh.Satpal Jain, 265, H-Block, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.
… Complainant
Versus
1. Karbonn Mobiles, 39/13, Off 7th Main Seventh Hal 2nd Stage Appareddy, Palya, Indira Nagar, Banglore-560038.
2. The Authorized Karbonn Service Centre, M/s Smart Solution, Shop no.8, Top Floor, Minerva Market, Near Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Proprietor.
… Opposite parties
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Quorum: Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President
Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member
Present: Ms.Anju Bala, Advocate for complainant.
OPs exparte.
ORDER
(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)
1. The present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Raman Jain s/o Sh.Satpal Jain, 265, H-Block, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana (hereinafter to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Karbonn Mobiles, 39/13, Off 7th Main Seventh Hal 2nd Stage Appareddy, Palya, Indira Nagar, Banglore and others (hereinafter to be referred as ‘OPs’)-directing them to repair the handset or to replace the defective handset with new one with fresh warranty or to refund the amount of handset alongwith interest and to pay Rs.1.0 lac as compensation to the complainant on account of mental torture, agony and mental pain suffered by the complainant.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased one handset/Mobile phone i.e. Karbonn A99 for Rs.5900/- from the OPs company i.e. from Mobile Junction, House no.9, South Model Gram, Shop no.4, Shakti Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana on 28.02.14. The said phone set was not working properly and the complainant took it back to the authorized service centre i.e. OP2 on 11.8.14, which was well within the warranty period as the phone set contains speaker and charging problems. It is pertinent to mention here that the phone is even now under the warranty period, but till date neither the phone has been conveyed to the complainant. The complainant has given repeated reminders to the OPs authorized service centre and customer care and head office, through e-mails dated 22.8.14, 23.8.14, 31.8.14, 2.9.14, 4.9.14 and 6.9.14, but he has not received any satisfactory reply. Thereafter after serving the legal notice to the OPs, the complainant received a call from the customer care of the company and he approached the customer care centre at Minerva Market, Ludhiana. They told that the handset of the company is dead now and it needs to be repaired and cost of the same is Rs.5000/-. It is worth mentioning here that all the data i.e. telephone numbers are in the mobile handset and data of the complainant is lost. Thereafter, again complainant had sent a legal notice dated 30.09.14 to the OPs calling upon the Ops to do the needful and replace the phoneset within 15 days from the service of the said notice, but the Ops neither gave any reply nor needful was done. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was sent to OP1, through registered post on 5.11.14. But none had come present on behalf of OP1. As such, after expiry of 30 days waiting period, the OP1 was proceeded exparte, vide order dated 22.12.14. Notice sent to OP2 was served. But none has come present on behalf of OP2. As such, OP2 was proceeded exparte, vide order dated 20.11.14.
4. In order to prove his case, complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also placed on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13.
5. We have gone through the evidence placed on record by the complainant and also perused the entire record before us.
6. It is proved fact on record that complainant had purchased one mobile phone i.e. Karbonn A99 worth Rs.5900/- from the OPs, vide invoice dated 28.2.14 Ex.C1. It is further proved on record that the said mobile set was not working properly and there were problems regarding the speaker and charging. The mobile set was sent to the Authorized Service Centre i.e. OP2 on 11.8.14, as the same was within warranty period. But the mobile set of the complainant was not duly repaired by the OPs. Since the mobile set of the complainant is within warranty period, so, it is the legal obligations of the OPs to carry out the necessary repair in the mobile set of the complainant or in the alternate to replace the mobile set or to refund the amount of the mobile set to the complainant. But the same has not been done so far, despite service of the legal notice by the complainant.
7. Since, the OPs did not appear and contest the present complaint, so evidence adduced by the complainant goes unchallenged and un-rebutted.
8. Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and Ops are directed to carry out the necessary repair in the mobile set of the complainant, without any cost to the satisfaction of the complainant within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of the order. In case, it is found that the said mobile set is not repairable, then OPs are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant without any cost or in the alternate to make refund of the amount of the mobile set, as per the invoice Ex.C1 placed on record i.e. Rs.5900/-. Further OPs are directed to pay Rs.1000/-(One thousand only) as compensation and litigation cost, compositely assessed to the complainant. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
(S.P.Garg) (R.L.Ahuja)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:14.01.2015
Hardeep Singh
