Punjab

Sangrur

CC/759/2015

Atam Swarup Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karbonn Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

02 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  759

                                                Instituted on:    29.07.2015

                                                Decided on:       02.03.2016

 

Atam Swarup Jindal son of Shri Hem Raj Jindal, resident of 98, Rose Avenue, Malerkotla 148 023 District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Karbon Mobiles through its Managing Director, Corporate Office : D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, Delhi-110 020.

2.             Service Centre Incharge Mr Raj Kumar, Prime Infocomm, Opp. Main Gate Govt. College, Malerkotla 148023 Punjab.

3.             Rama Enterprises, Club Road, Malerkotla -148 023 Punjab.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               In person.

For OP No. 1            :               Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.

For OP No.2&3         :               Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Atam Swarup Jindal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Karbon mobile hand set model number Titanium-X having IMEI number 911350500017642 from OP number 3  vide bill number 252 dated 21.12.2013.  It is further averred in the complaint that the mobile set in question started to give problem after the period of five months of its purchase as there was problem with the battery of the mobile, as such, the complainant approached OP number 3, who advised to approach OP number 2.  As such, the complainant approached  OP number 2 on 31.5.2014, who told to come on the next day, but the OP number 2 did nothing despite repeated visits of the complainant to OP number 2 on various dates as mentioned in the complaint.  It is further averred  that during this process, the screen of the mobile set also broken.  Lastly, the complainant sent so many mails to the OPs regarding the defects in the mobile set, but all in vain.  The complainant has further averred in the complaint that on 16.7.2014, the complainant again purchased a new mobile set for Rs.11,800/-.  As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.16,500/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OPs number 2 and 3 did not appear despite service, as such OPs number 2 and 3 were proceeded exparte on 17.09.2015.

 

3.             In the reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant never approached the OPs for anything during the warranty period and has stated that if the mobile set has got any defect due to mishandling of the mobile set by the complainant, then the company is not liable to do anything.  Moreover, it is stated that the complainant is litigant person and is habitual of filing false cases.  As such, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-36 copies of emails, Ex.C-37 copy of bill dated 16.7.2014 and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             Ex.C-2 is a copy of the invoice dated 21.12.2013 issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.16,150/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question and availed the services of the OP number 1.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant and the Ops that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant became defective after a period of five months of its use from the date of purchase, as such, he approached the OP number 3, who advised the complainant to approach OP number 2. The complainant though visited the OP number 2 a number of times, but nothing was done rather the complainant was harassed by OP number 2 to come on different dates, but without any result.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has narrated whole of the story in the complaint as well as has also produced the documents Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-36 on record and Ex.C-1 is the affidavit to support his contention in the complaint.  On the other hand, the OP number 1 has produced only a sworn affidavit of Nitish Pathak of OP, who has flatly denied the fact of approaching the OPs by the complainant, but we are unable to accept such a contention, more so when the complainant has produced on record iota of evidence to support his contention.   It is worth mentioning here that the OPs number 2 and 3 have failed to put appearance, nor the OP number 2 has produced any sworn affidavit to deny the fact of the complainant that he approached the OP number 2 so many times.   Moreover, there is no explanation from the side of OP number 1 that why the OP number 2 did not appear and chose to remain exparte, as OP number 2 is the service centre of OP number 1.  Reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh State Commission in Krishna Kumar Sahu versus Manager, Jai Shri Electronics and others 2010(1) CPR 149, wherein the complainant alleged defects in the mobile set, as the defects arose in the mobile set during the warranty period and was not repaired within a reasonable time, it was held to be  a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It has been further held that the OPs were under obligation to fix such defects within a reasonable time, as such, the Hon'ble Commission ordered the refund of the amount to the complainant.  So, similar is the position in the present case, as the OP number 2 neither repaired the mobile set in question nor replaced the same nor made the refund of the amount of the cost  of the  mobile set,  as such, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.16,500/- being the cost of the mobile set, however, subject to returning of the mobile set in question along with all the accessories thereof by the complainant to the OPs.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 2, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member