Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/511/2015

Gaurav Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karbonn Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

06 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/511/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	05/08/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	06/01/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Gaurav Kumar, resident of House No.477, Saini Vihar Phase-2, Baltana, Zirakpur, District Mohali.

 

….Complainant

VERSUS

 

1.   Karbonn Mobiles Pvt. Limited, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi – 110020, through its Proprietor/Authorized Officer.

 

2.   Karbonn Service Centre, Shri Ganesh Mobile Solutions, Shop No.9/1, Maheshpur, Sector 21, Panchkula, through its Proprietor/ Authorized Officer.

 

3.   Anmol Watches, SCO No. 1012-1013, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor (Dealer of Karbonn Mobile Handsets).

…… Opposite Parties 

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OPs	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased one Karbonn S5 Plus mobile handset from M/s Anmol Watches (Opposite Party No.3) for a total consideration of Rs.11350/- vide bill dated 11.01.2014. It has been averred that from November 2014, the said mobile handset developed lines gradually during use on its screen due to which its display was not clear. Since the intensity of line tends to increase during daily use of the handset, the Complainant deposited the handset with the Karbonn Service Centre (Opposite Party No.2) on 03.01.2015. The Complainant was assured to get the repaired handset within 15 to 90 days. It has been alleged that it was only after constant follow up that the Complainant received the handset replaced by an old unit of same make on 04.04.2015 i.e. after completion of 90 days. During all this period the Complainant had to suffer a lot owing to unprofessional behavior of the Karbonn Service Personnel. It has been further alleged that after receiving handset on 04.04.2015, only about one week afterward of its use, the mobile handset again developed problem of non-detection of Sim Card and frequent restarting. As such, the Complainant deposited the handset with the Karbonn Service Centre (Opposite Party No.2) on 03.05.2015, since when it is lying with the Service Centre for want of repairs. Eventually, a legal notice dated 13.05.2015, was served upon the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, but the same failed to fetch the desired results.  Therefore, alleging the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 29.09.2015 and 03.12.2015 respectively.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 initially appeared through Sh. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate, on 29.09.2015, but subsequently, it absented and therefore vide order dated 03.12.2015, it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

 

4.          Complainant led evidence.

 

 

5.     We have heard the Complainant in person and have also perused the record.   

 

6.     In the present case, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Parties who were duly served and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through their Counsel. It is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant in visiting the Authorized Service Centre (Opposite Party No.2) for a number of times, to get his mobile handset repaired, is also writ large. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 neither rectified the defects in the mobile handset despite repeated endeavors, nor did they replace the defective handset with a new one. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against them.

 

7.     In the light of above observations, the present complaint succeeds against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. The same is allowed qua them. We direct the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, jointly and severally, as under:- 

 

[a]  To refund Rs.11,350/- being the invoice price of the Karbonn S5 Plus mobile handset;

 

[b]  Pay Rs.5,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] Pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

 

          The Complaint against Opposite Party No.3 is dismissed.

 

8.     This order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-paras [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, besides complying with the directions as in sub-para [c] above.      

 

9.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

06^th January, 2016                                        

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER