DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 165 of 5.5.2017
Decided on: 7.9.2017
Malwinder Singh aged 35 years son of S.Harcharan Singh, resident of House No.14, Prem Nagar, Gali No.3, Bhadson Road, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Karbonn Mobiles, D-170 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110020 through its MD/Chairman/General Manager.
2. Singla Communicators, SCO-65, New Leela Bhawan, Patiala through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager (Karbonn Mobiles Service Centre)
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Malwinder Singh, complainant in person.
Opposite parties ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
- The complainant placed an on-line order for the purchase of one mobile phone from Flipkart, make Karbonn Quattro L-50, which was delivered to the complainant on 8.3.2016. It is averred that after a period of almost 4 months, the touch pad of the mobile phone stopped working and the complainant got the same deposited with the authorized service centre of the company i.e. OP no.2 on 18.7.2016 and the OP told the complainant to collect the mobile phone after one week. But OP no.2 swapped the mobile phone after 60 days on 17.9.2016.This swapped mobile phone worked properly for a few months only and it started giving the same problem i.e. the touch paid of the mobile phone stopped working. The complainant approached OP no.2 but it kept on lingering on the matter under one pretext or the other. The complainant also sent various e-mails to the OPs and OP no.1 told the complainant to send the bill as well as previous job sheet number, which the complainant sent to OP no.1. After this OP no.1 told the complainant to approach OP no.2 and the complainant approached OP no.2 who told the complainant to confirm from OP no.1, whether OP no.1 will rectify the problem within warranty. Accordingly the complainant contacted OP no.1 who told the complainant that the repair would be done on chargeable basis as it was beyond warranty. As such the complainant underwent a lot of mental agony as well as harassment at the hands of the OPs. By selling a defective mobile phone a lot of precious time as well as money of the complainant has been wasted. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act), 1986.
- On notice, OPs failed to contest the claim of the complainant despite service and were thus proceeded against ex-parte.
- In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and closed the evidence.
- Complainant did not file written arguments. We have heard the complainant in person and also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C2, is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone on 8.3.2016.In the month of July 2016, the same stopped working and the complainant got it deposited with OP no.2 vide job sheet i.e.Ex.C3. Op No.2 kept the mobile phone with it for two months and after that OP swapped the mobile phone and gave it to the complainant. The complainant was without mobile phone for two months. The swapped mobile phone worked properly for a few months and it started giving the same problem. The complainant approached OP no.2 but it kept on lingering on the matter under one pretext or the other. The complainant also sent various e-mails ( copy of the e-mails is attached as Ex.C1 and Ex.C4.On contacting OP no.1, it told the complainant that the repair of the mobile phone could be done on chargeable basis as the mobile phone was out of warranty.
- During the course of arguments, the complainant argued that OP no.2 kept the mobile phone with it for two months and after the period of two months it gave a swapped mobile phone to the complainant.But after a period of six months the swapped mobile phone also started giving the same problem. When the complainant approached the Ops they told the complainant that the mobile phone would be repaired on chargeable basis as it was out of warranty.
- In the present case, the Ops provided a new mobile phone to the complainant on 17.9.2016, which shows that the new mobile phone ought to be under one year warranty.But the same started giving problem after a period of six months i.e. within the warranty period and the Ops refused to rectify the same which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
- As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OPs no.1&2 to repair the mobile phone of the complainant free of cost and if that is not possible to refund the amount of Rs.6749/- i.e. the price of the mobile phone in question to the complainant. OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.2000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 7.9.2017 NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
