DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.419 of 27-09-2013

Decided on 14-11-2013

Kuldeep Singh aged about 25 years S/o Nachhatar Singh R/o House No.19962/A, Gali No.4/5, near Bajwa House, Jhujhar Singh Nagar, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Karbonn Mobile Vintej Communication Care Centre, near Vardhman Dress House, Gole Diggi, Bathinda.

2.Karbonn Mobile Jainamarketing and Associates D-170, Ukhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi, India-110020.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Kuldeep Singh, complainant in person.

For Opposite parties: Opposite parties ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased one mobile handset Karbonn model A-5 Star, bearing IMEI No.911227401345324 from A.M.C Communication 28, The Mall, Old Hospital Bazar, Bathinda for Rs.5000/- vide bill No.797 on dated 7.8.2013 with one year warranty but the said mobile handset worked for 8 days only. The complainant further alleged that now the said mobile handset has become defective and it has been functioning automatically as its touch is working automatically and multi functions opened automatically. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for the repair of the said mobile handset on 16.8.2013, its employees assured him to rectify the defect and kept the said mobile handset with it vide receipt No.KJKSPPB124814K2287 and asked the complainant to take the delivery of the said mobile handset after one week after its repair. The complainant alleged that he visited the office of the opposite party No.1 ten times but the opposite party No.1 failed to rectify his mobile handset. The complainant has lodged many complaints on the customer care No.0164-5001808 but he has not received any response from the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 has given time of one week for the repair of the said mobile handset but has failed to rectify the same till date and has kept the mobile handset in question with it. When the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 to get his said mobile handset, he was accompanied by his cousin Navdeep Singh Chahal. Despite repeated requests of the complainant, the opposite parties have failed to rectify the abovesaid mobile handset. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties either to repair the said mobile handset or to replace the same or to refund its amount (i.e. Rs.5000/-) to him alongwith cost and compensation.

2. Notice by hand/dasti was sent to the opposite party No.1 that has been received by it on dated 15.10.2013 and registered notice has been sent to the opposite party No.2 vide postal receipt No.A RP300216481IN on dated 8.10.2013 but none appeared on behalf of both the opposite parties before this Forum despite receiving the summons, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against both the opposite parties.

3. The complainant has led ex-parte evidence to support his allegations. He has produced Ex.C1 affidavit of Sh.Navdeep Singh dated 26.9.2013; Ex.C2 photocopy of customer receipt; Ex.C3 photocopy of invoice dated 7.8.2013 and Ex.C4 his own affidavit dated 26.9.2013.

4. The arguments advanced by the complainant heard at length. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the complainant perused.

5. The contention of the complainant is that he has purchased one mobile handset Karbonn model A-5 Star, bearing IMEI No.911227401345324 from A.M.C Communication 28, The Mall, Old Hospital Bazar, Bathinda for Rs.5000/- vide bill No.797 on dated 7.8.2013 with one year warranty. The said mobile handset started giving problems just after 8 days of its purchase. The complainant lodged the complaint with the opposite party No.1 on 16.8.2013, it kept the said mobile handset with it vide receipt No.KJKSPPB124814K2287 and assured the complainant that the said mobile handset would be repaired within one week but despite his repeated visits, the opposite party No.1 has failed to rectify the mobile handset in question and kept the same with it. The complainant has also lodged many complaints to the customer care i.e. opposite party No.2 but till date nothing has been done.

6. A perusal of Ex.C2, customer receipt of service centre information dated 16.8.2013 shows that 'trackpad not working'. A perusal of bill, Ex.C3, shows that the abovesaid mobile handset had been purchased on 7.8.2013. The version of the complainant seems to be true that the said mobile handset had functioned only for 8 days and after that it had stopped working and the complainant has visited the opposite party No.1 for the repair of the said mobile handset, it has issued the job sheet dated 16.8.2013 vide Ex.C2, in this job sheet the defect as per voice of customer has been mentioned 'trackpad not working', meaning thereby the defect occurred within 8-9 days of the purchase of the said mobile handset. The opposite party No.1 assured the complainant to rectify the defect within one week, but if it would have been rectified by the opposite party No.1 there would have been no need to the complainant to approach to this Forum for the redressal of his grievances.

7. The opposite parties despite receiving the summons have failed to appear before this Forum which again confirms that they were fully aware of the fact that they have given the defective mobile handset to the complainant and in order to shed their liability they have failed to appear before this Forum. The non-appearance of the opposite parties before this Forum shows that they want to evade their liability and do not want to take the responsibility of the abovesaid mobile handset sold by them which has become defective after the use of 8-9 days.

8. Thus from the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file we are of the considered opinion that the opposite parties have sold a defective mobile handset to the complainant as the defect regarding the 'trackpad was not working' had occurred just within 8-9 days of its purchase.

9. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.4000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.5000/-(cost of the mobile handset in question) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum since 16.8.2013 till realization. The mobile handset in question is already lying with the opposite party No.1.

10. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

14-11-2013 President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member