Date of filing: 01.09.2014.
Date of disposal: 28.10.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Tuesday, the 28th day of October, 2014
C.C.No.189 of 2014
Between:
K. Vinod Kumar, S/o Subba Rao, Hindu, Services, R/o.D.No.41-1/5-9, Gowthami Nagar, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
…..Complainant.
And
1. Karbonn Mobiles, Rep: by its Authorized Person, #39/13, off 7th Main, Hall 2nd Stage, Appareddy Playa, Indiranagar, Bangalore – 560038.
2. M&M Technologies, Rep: by its Authorized Person, Authorized Service Center, Karbon Mobiles, #28-1-38, 1st Floor, Above New Stands Book Center, Eluru Road, Vijayawada.
3. Lot Mobiles Pvt., Ltd., Rep: by its Authorized Person, D.No.29-37-135/1, Eluru Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada.
.. … Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 22.10.2014, in the presence of Sri Devaram Srihari, advocate for complainant; opposite parties remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.9,999/- together with interest at 24% p.a from the date of purchase of mobile to till the date of realization, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and damages for causing mental agony, for costs and other reliefs.
1. The brief facts of the case which lead to filing the present complaint are that the complainant purchased Karbonn Mobile bearing Model No.A 27 + from the 3rd opposite party for Rs.9,999/- on 9-7-2013 under one year warranty and soon after purchase, the said mobile phone found operating problem and handed over the same to 2nd opposite party in the months of August, November and December 2013 who rectified the problem and gave without entering in service register. But in the first week of March, the Mobile again gave problem and the 2nd opposite party kept the mobile for more than one and half month and returned in the last week of April, 2014. Soon after receipt of the same, the battery is discharging within one hour and on the advice of 2nd opposite party, the complainant purchased a new battery, but again the mobile developed problem. As such the complainant handed over the mobile to 2nd opposite party on 30-6-2014 vide job sheet No.F087. Thereafter in spite of repeated demands made by the complainant, the 2nd opposite party did not return the same. The complainant visited the office of 2nd opposite party not less than 20 times. But the 2nd opposite party intentionally harassed the complainant by retaining the mobile with them and as such the acts of opposite parties 1 to 3 is nothing but deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties 1 to 3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 called absent and remained absent.
3. The complainant filed his affidavit reiterating the material averments of his complaint and got marked Ex.A1 and A2. None examined on behalf of opposite party.
4. Heard the complainant and perused the record.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in supplying defective mobile to complainant?
- If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
6. Point No.1: On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), the case of complainant is that he purchased A27+ Karbonn mobile from the 3rd opposite party on 9-7-2013 for Rs.9,999/- under Ex.A1 Bill, which was manufactured by 1st opposite party. The grievance of the complainant is that soon after its purchase, the complainant found operating problem and he handed over the same to 2nd opposite party who is authorized service center of 1st opposite party for repair and that the 2nd opposite party rectified the problem for thrice in the months of August, November and December, 2013. But in the first week of March, 2014 again the mobile got problem and the 2nd opposite party rectified the same and handed over mobile in the month of April, 2014. Later as the battery discharging within one hour, upon the advice of 2nd opposite party, the complainant purchased a new battery, but of no use. As such the complainant handed over the set to 2nd opposite party under Ex.A2 job card for repair and from then the 2nd opposite party not returned the same and retained with them. Though the complainant alleged that there is warranty period of one year to the set, he has not filed any warranty card. But perusal of Ex.A2 job card shows that the 2nd opposite party entertained the repair work and as such it is within warranty period. Further Ex.A2 job card reveals that the fault description is 'battery discharge' as stated by complainant and the job done is 'batteries received'. The main grievance of the complainant is that from 30-6-2014, the 2nd opposite party has not returned the phone to complainant though he had visited the 2nd opposite party number of times.
7. Perusal of record discloses that, though the opposite parties received notices, the opposite parties have not made its appearance before this Forum. As such the opposite parties 1 to 3 are remained absent and the allegations made against it are unchallenged one. The complainant by way of documentary evidence under Ex.A1 and A2 proved that he purchased the mobile and handed over it for repairs to 2nd opp.aprty, which is authorized service center of 1st opposite party. As such this Forum has no option to draw an adverse inference that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile, which has got one year warranty. The 1st opposite party being manufacturer and the 2nd opposite party being the authorized service center are liable to make the loss good occurred to complainant. The 3rd opposite party is only a dealer who sold the mobile who is no way concerned with the defects in the mobile.
8. According to Section 2(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act any fault or imperfection or short coming in its quality, potency, performance or standard which is required to be maintained by under any Law for the time being in force or as is claimed by a trader in any manner whatever in relation to any goods comes within the mischief of defective goods. As per Section 14(1)(a) & (b) the buyer is entitled to remedy by way of either removed the defect or by way of replacing the goods with similar description or by way of return of the price or charges paid by the consumer.
11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.
Point No.2:
In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally are directed to refund the amount of Rs.9,999/- (Rupees nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) with interest at Rs.9% p.a. from 30-6-2014 till the date of realization by retaining the mobile with them and also pay compensation of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) besides costs of Rs.500/- to the complainant. Time for compliance is one month. Complaint against opposite party no.3 is dismissed without costs. The other claims of complainant if any shall stands dismissed.
Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 28th day of October, 2014.
PRESIDENT (FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -None- For the opposite parties: -None-
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 09.07.2013 Copy of credit bill issued by OP.3
Ex.A2 30.06.2014 Original copy of job sheet.
On behalf of the opposite parties: -None-
PRESIDENT (FAC).
