BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 82/2010 Filed on 15.03.2010

Dated : 30.09.2010

Complainant:

P.M. Rajan, S/o Madhavan residing at T.C. No. 5/2387, S.S.R Nivas, Kowdiar P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-3.

(Appeared in person)

Opposite parties :

1. Karbonn Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Customer Service Manager, L-13, Diamond District, Airport Road, Kodihalli, Bangalore-8.

    

2. Mobile Point, Mobile Phone Service Centre, Ayyappas Compound, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

3. Minnus Videos & Electronics, T.C 1704/2, Mas Tower, Opp: Sub Jail, Attakulangara, Thiruvananthapuram-9.

    

4. United Tele Links, Karbonn Regional Service Centre, P.J. Antony Road, Palarivattom, Kochi-25.

    

5. Avittam Communications, Avittam, Ambalamukku, Kowdiar P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-3.

This O.P having been heard on 04.09.2010, the Forum on 30.09.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Complainant in this case is a social worker. The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of Karbonn mobile phones, the 2^nd opposite party is its authorized service centre, 3^rd opposite party is its main dealer, 4^th opposite party is its main service centre and 5^th opposite party is its sub dealer. Complainant had purchased a mobile phone viz, Karbonn handset model No. K 331 with IMEI No. 910002330076378 on 28.11.2009 for an amount of Rs. 2,300/- from the 5^th opposite party as per invoice No. 6 dated 28.11.2009. The said mobile phone was having warranty for a period of one year from the date of its purchase. However during the substances of warranty period within 1 month itself the mobile phone become faulty and such the complainant was not in a position to use the same. Accordingly the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party on 06.02.2010 for replacing the defective handset with a fault free one. Thereafter as per the certificate issued by the 2^nd opposite party dated 10.02.2010, the complainant was asked to approach the 3^rd opposite party within 10 days along with defective handset for the purpose of replacing the same. Accordingly, the complainant had approached the 3^rd opposite party on 11.02.2010 for replacing the defective handset. The 3^rd opposite party said the complainant that they had no stock of the Karbonn K 331 and must satisfy with the faulty one. Then the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party Area Sales Manager and South India Service Manager. They said that the Karbonn mobile K 331 had stopped by the Karbonn Mobile Company and can't replace the handset. The complainant then asked them to reimburse the price of the mobile handset even though the complainant had approached the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties several times and told them about his urgent necessity for a mobile phone, they had only shows a deaf ear to his request. Even the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties had gone to the extent of abusing the complainant. The complainant then independently approached the 4^th opposite party's Regional Service Centre, Ernakulam and told about the defective handset and the difficulties that he suffered from the opposite parties. But they had also shown a deaf ear to his request. The mobile phone purchased by the complainant was defective and as such the opposite parties are bound and liable to replace the handset of the complainant since the defect with respect to the handset has occurred during the subsistence of the warranty period. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant is much aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant is having no other option than to approach the Forum for justice.

Opposite parties in this case accepted notice from this Forum, but they never turned up to contest the case. Hence the opposite parties are set ex-parte.

Complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has produced 3 documents to prove his contention which were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. As per the application filed by the complainant this Forum appointed an expert commission to ascertain the defects of the disputed mobile phone. Commission Report filed by the commissioner is marked as Ext. C1.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant has purchased the mobile phone on 28.11.2009 for an amount of Rs. 2,300/- from the 1^st opposite party. The original invoice dated 28.11.2009 is produced and marked as Ext. P1. The warranty card of the phone is marked as Ext. P2. The manufacturer assured one year warranty for the mobile phone. The complainant alleges that the phone became defective within one month itself, i.e; during the warranty period. Complainant approached the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, the service centre and the dealer with the handset. The receipt issued by the 3^rd opposite party is marked as Ext. P3. The repeated demands and requests of the complainant for replacing the defective handset were denied by the opposite parties. They told the complainant that the production of Karbonn mobile K 331 handset has been stopped and it is not possible to replace the handset. The request of the complainant to reimburse the price of the mobile phone was also denied by the opposite parties. As per Sec. 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, this Forum appointed Mr. Vittalean Thomas as the expert commissioner to examine the defects of the disputed mobile phone. The commissioner ascertained the defects and filed the report before this Forum which is marked as Ext. C1. As per the report the following defects are seen. Board problem : due to manufacturing defect, Net work problem: no network search/access, I.C and antenna switch complaint, Auto Switch Off/On while using the phone: due to software error/complaint, Software Problem: due to manufacturing defect, Speaker complaint, Battery complaint, Charger complaint, Headset complaint. From this report we find that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant is defective. Hence the opposite parties are liable to replace the handset of the complainant, since the defects with respect to the handset has occurred during the subsistence of the warranty period. Since the defects occurred due to manufacturing defect, the 1^st opposite party, the manufacturer is liable to replace the phone or refund the price of the mobile phone. The 3^rd and 5^th opposite parties, the dealers have also some after sale responsibility to the customers to settle their complaints. In this case the complainant approached them with the defective handset, but they did not turn up to settle the matter. 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties, the authorized service centres have also some liability to settle the matter. If they found that the phone was a defective one and if it is not possible to cure the defects, they can inform the matter to the manufacturer and they ought have settled the complaint. But they did not do so. Hence they are also liable to compensate the complainant. The act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant is entitled to get the price of the mobile phone from the opposite parties and also compensation for mental agony. Hence complaint is allowed.

In the result, the 1^st opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 2,300/- with 12% annual interest from 10.02.2010 till the date of realization to the complainant and shall pay Rs. 2,500/- as costs. Opposite parties 2 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 4,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of September 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 82/2010

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Receipt dated 28.11.2009

P2 - Mobile phone warranty card

P3 - DOA Format

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

V COURT EXHIBITS :

C1 - Commission Report

PRESIDENT

jb