Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/204/2015

Ashu Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karbonn Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

N.S.Jagdeva

19 Oct 2015

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/204/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	01/04/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	19/10/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Ashu Sharma w/o Shakti Sharma, resident of H.No.127, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   Karbonn Mobiles, through its Managing Director, 39/13, Off 7^th Main, HAL 2^nd Stage Appareddy Palya, Indira Nagar and Bangalore – 560038.

 

2.   Sera Stores, through its Proprietor, SCO 1027, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 

3.   Davindra Communications, through its Proprietor, Authorized Service Centre for Karbonn Mobiles, Shop No. 2212/1, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Parties  

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. N.S. Jagdeva, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. N.S. Sidhu, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Ex-parte.
For OP No.3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant had purchased a Karbonn Titanium Octane plus mobile handset from Opposite Party No.2 on 23.12.2014 for Rs.11,900/- vide retail invoice (Annexure C-1), with one year warranty (Annexure C-2). The said handset went out of order within three days and was taken to Opposite Party No.3 on 05.01.2015, who after carrying out necessary repairs returned the handset to the Complainant on the same day. On 22.1.2015, the Complainant again faced similar problems and deposited the handset with Opposite Party No.3 who returned the same in the evening after repairs (Job Card Annexure C-3). However, after some days the mobile handset again went out of order and was deposited with the Opposite Party No.3 on 6.3.2015. Thereafter, the Complainant visited the Opposite Party No.3 a number of times, but it (OP No.3) failed to rectify the defects in the mobile handset.  It has been stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, has not been redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), has been filed.

 

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 24.06.2015.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case has stated that when the Complainant approached the Service Centre on 05.01.2015 and 22.01.2015, her mobile handset was rectified and returned to her after upgrading/fixing the software. It has been asserted that the present Complaint has been filed on false and frivolous grounds, as whenever the Complainant approached the Service Centre for repairs, the mobile handset in question was repaired properly. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, answering Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statements filed by the Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party No.1 have been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.

 

7.      It has been alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Party No.3 has shifted its office without any intimation to the Complainant/ publicity in the newspaper. The Opposite Party No.3 has failed to place on record any evidence such as publication/ public notice/ intimation to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.3 is thus found to be deficient on this account.

 

8.      The Complainant has also alleged that the mobile set manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 is of a very poor quality, and has inherent manufacturing defect. Regarding this, the Complainant has failed to submit technical report. In the absence of submission of technical report by the Complainant, the point cannot be substantiated.

 

9.      The Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted.

 

10.      It has also been alleged that on 6.3.2015 the Complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No.3 at Manimajra and handed over her mobile set to them for repairs, but has not been attended by the Opposite Party No.3 and rather, it (OP No.3) returned the handset unrepaired, which makes a pointer towards deficiency in service on its part.  

 

11.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 are, directed  to:-

[a]  To repair the defective mobile handset of the Complainant within a period of 15 days from the date of this order, failing which they shall refund Rs.11,900/- being the invoice price of the Karbonn Titanium Octane plus mobile handset ;

[b]  To make payment of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment;

[c]  To make payment of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses;

 

          The Complaint qua Opposite Party No.2 stands dismissed.

 

12.      The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No. [a] & [b] above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

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

Announced

19^th October, 2015                            

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER