BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.303 of 2014

Date of Instt. 02.09.2014

Date of Decision :05.02.2015

Arjun Singh R/o House No.98, Navjoyti Colony, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Karbonn Mobiles, 39/13, Office 7th Main, Hal 2nd Stage, Appareddy Playa, Indranagar, Banglore-560038.

2. Jagdambay Mobile House, Near Dolphin Hotel, Jail Road, Jalandhar-144001.

3. Karbonn Mobile Service Centre, 142, Vijay Nagar, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Smt.Balbir Kaur, Auth.Rep.for the complainant.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhar Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 3.

Opposite party No.2 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a karbonn mobile phone model A1+Duple from opposite party No.3(actually opposite party No.2) vide invoice No.3586 for a sum of Rs.3550/- dated 22.12.2013 having IMEI No.911322452620640 for personal use. At the time of purchasing of said mobile, the opposite party No.2 has given twelve months warranty. Opposite party No.1 is manufacturer of karbonn mobile phones and opposite party No.2 (actually opposite party No.3) is authorized service centre of opposite party No.1. After fourteen days from the date of purchase the said mobile phone set started giving screen problem. He immediately approached to the opposite party No.3 service centre of Karbonn and opposite party No.3 after checking told to him to collect the same after seven days and took the handset without battery. After seven days, he approached the opposite party No.3 and it gave the handset after repair but after some time, the handset was having same problem. He gave the handset to opposite party No.3 but after few days the handset again started giving same problem. He approached opposite party No.3 and requested it to repair it properly or to change it. The opposite party No.3 collected the handset for repair but when he took back the handset, it again started having same problem after some time. He again approached opposite party No.3 and handset was repaired in one day but after one week the handset started having the same problem. He again approached opposite party No.3 for repair or new handset but opposite party refused, although the handset was during warranty period. Thereafter he approached opposite parties No.2 and 3 personally for 8-10 times on telephone and also to opposite party No.1 on its website and requested them to repair the mobile handset but they did not bother. There is manufacturing defect in the mobile handset of the opposite parties and they are bound to repair the same as the mobile handset is under warranty period. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile handset. He has also claimed compensation.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 and 3 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that as per the information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant purchased his handset on 22.12.2013 and from that date till today the handset is working properly and there was no fault in the handset till today but the complainant in order to harass and pressurize the opposite parties, filed the present complaint. It is necessary to mention here that the complainant never visited the office of opposite party No.3 i.e service centre of Karbonn Mobiles and the opposite parties No.1 and 3 has no knowledge whether there is a problem in the handset or not. It is further necessary to mention there that if the complainant visited the opposite party No.2, it clearly shows that there is a connivance between the opposite party No.2 and the complainant, if any adverse order is passed against opposite parties No.1 and 3, then the opposite party No.2 is only responsible for that. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite party No.2 did not appear inspite of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, authorized representative of complainant has tendered affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A evidence of opposite parties No.1 and 3 was closed by order.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard authorized representative of complainant and learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 3.

7. The authorized representative of the complainant contended that the mobile handset developed defect during the warranty period and he visited opposite parties number of times but they failed to rectify the defect. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 3 that from the date of purchase of mobile handset is working properly and complainant never visited opposite parties No.1 and 3 alleging any problem in the handset. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by both the parties. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the mobile handset in question vide retailed invoice dated 22.12.2013 Ex.C2 from opposite party No.2 for Rs.3550/-. The complainant has not placed on record any service job sheet to show that he deposited the mobile handset with service centre at any time during warranty period. So in absence of service job sheet, it is not clear if the complainant had actual approached the service centre i.e opposite party No.3 alleging any problem in the mobile handset in question. However, the complainant has placed on record copy of notices Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 served by him on opposite parties No.1 and 3. In his affidavit Ex.OPW1/A Sh.Bharpreet Singh, Authorized Representative/Manager of opposite party No.3 has stated that complainant never visited the office of opposite party No.1 and 3 and it has no knowledge whether there is any problem in the handset or not. The present complaint was filed during warranty period. If there is any defect in the mobile handset then opposite parties No.1 and 3 are liable to rectify the defect in it free of cost.

8. In the above circumstances, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties No.1 and 3 are directed to rectify the defect in the mobile handset of the complainant free of cost within 15 days after the complainant deposit his mobile handset with service centre i.e opposite party No.3. The complainant is directed to deposit the mobile handset in question with opposite party No.3 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order for repair. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

05.02.2015 Member President