BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.149 of 2016
Date of Instt. 30.3.2016
Date of Decision : 09.06.2016
Arjit aged about 16 years son of Rakesh Kaushal through his father and natural guardian Rakesh Kaushal aged about 53 years son of Rattan Chand, R/o House No.493-A, Gali No.7, Guru Nanakpura (West), Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1.Karbonn Mobiles Ltd., (Corporate Office), D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110020 through its MD.
2.M/s Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd., R.O:-Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its MD
3.Gopal Telecom, 1st Floor, Nirmal Complex, Near Namdev Chowk, Jalandhar through its Manager/Managing Partner.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh.Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Vijay Sharma Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties (herein called as OPs) on the averments that complainant purchased one Karbonn mobile phone from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 7.5.2015 for a sum of Rs.10,200/-. The said mobile set became defective/out of order and complainant approached OP No.3, authorized service centre through OP No.2 on 30.9.2015 for repair of the mobile. OP No.3 repaired the mobile set of the complainant and handed over the same to the complainant but when the complainant checked the said mobile phone, the same defect was found and the complainant handed over the mobile set to the OP No.3 who told the complainant that complainant should deposit the accessories of the mobile phone alongwith box, so that the mobile set of the complainant can be replaced. Complainant then deposited the accessories and box of the mobile set with OP No.3 on 5.11.2015. Thereafter, OP No.3 neither repaired the mobile set of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant not replaced the same with new one. The mobile set alongwith accessories and box has been lying with OP No.3 since 15.11.2015. Complainant also served legal notice dated 12.2.2016 upon the OPs through registered letter but inspite of that the OPs No.1 and 3 neither returned the mobile set of the complainant after repair nor replaced the same with new one. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to refund the price of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.10,200/- alongwith interest to the complainant. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Notice of this complaint was given to the OPs but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such they were proceeded against exparte.
3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.
4. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by complainant with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsel for the complainant.
5. From the record i.e. averments of the complaint and evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stands fully proved that complainant purchased one Karbonn mobile phone from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 7.5.2015 Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.10,200/-. The said mobile set became defective/out of order and complainant approached OP No.3, authorized service centre through OP No.2 on 30.9.2015 for repair of the mobile. OP No.3 repaired the mobile set of the complainant and handed over the same to the complainant but when the complainant checked the said mobile phone, the same defect was found and the complainant handed over the mobile set to the OP No.3 who told the complainant that complainant should deposit the accessories of the mobile phone alongwith box, so that the mobile set of the complainant can be replaced. Complainant then deposited the accessories and box of the mobile set with OP No.3 on 5.11.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C2. Thereafter, OP No.3 neither repaired the mobile set of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant not replaced the same with new one. The mobile set alongwith accessories and box has been lying with OP No.3 since 15.11.2015. Complainant also served legal notice dated 12.2.2016 Ex.C3 through registered post(postal receipts of which are Ex.C4 to Ex.C6) upon the OPs but inspite of that the OPs No.1 and 3 neither returned the mobile set of the complainant after repair nor replaced the same with new one. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
6. The evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged as none appeared on behalf of the OPs to contest the complaint filed by the complainant nor any person from the OPs dared to file affidavit to rebut the evidence produced by the complainant. Consequently, we hold that the mobile set of the complainant is beyond repair as the same has been lying with the OP No.3 since 30.9.2015. Even the complainant deposited the accessories as well as box of the mobile set with the OP No.3 on 5.11.2015 so that the OPs No.1 & 3 may replace the mobile set of the complainant but OPs did not do so. Consequently, we hold that mobile set of the complainant is not repairable. As such, OPs No.1 & 3 are liable to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one.
7. Consequently, we allow the complaint filed by the complainant exparte with cost and OPs No.1 & 3 are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund the price amount of the mobile set to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing with OPs No.1 & 3 are liable to pay interest @ Rs.9/- % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. OPs No.1 & 3 are directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
09.06.2016 Member President
