BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.234 of 2014

Date of Instt. 15.04.2014

Date of Decision :06.02.2015

Parminder Vasran son of Mulakh Raj Vasran, R/o Village Kot Sadique, PO Basti Gujjan, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Karbonn Mobiles, # 39/13, Office 7th Main, HAL 2nd Stage, Appareddy Palya, Indiranagar, Banglore-560038 through its MD/authorized signatory/Manager.

2. Karbonn Mobile, Head Office D-170, Industrial Area, Okhla, Phase-I, South Delhi, New Delhi, through its authorized person/manager.

3. Karbonn Mobile Service Centre, C/o Harsehaj Communication, Shop No.2, Plot No.323, Stree No.6A, Mobile Market, Central Town, Jalandhar, at present New Vijay Nagar, Jalandhar throught its Manager/Incharge/Authorized person.

4. Joshi Mobile House, Opposite Sabzi Mandi, Near Singh Bhawani Mandir, Sultanpur Lodhi(Kapurthala) through its Manager/Incharge/authorized person.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Karan Aggarwal Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhar Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 to 3.

Opposite party No.4 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant had purchased one Karbonn mobile, model A-27 from the opposite party No.4 on 21.3.2013 vide invoice/bill No.2164 for Rs.8300/- having IMEI No.911304200084709. At the time of purchase one year warranty on the said mobile phone was given. After few months of usage, the mobile started creating problems. The mobile phone was not working properly, there was some ringing/sound problem. The complainant was very much surprised about its mis-functioning and the complainant contacted the opposite party No.4 and informed about the malfunctioning of the above said handset and the opposite party No.4 assured the complainant to rectify the same as the aforesaid handset is under warranty and the opposite party No.4 further told the complainant to visit the office of opposite party No.3, who is authorized service centre of the Karbonn Mobile Phone. The complainant visited opposite party No.3 and deposited the said mobile with opposite party No.3 for rectifying the defect. The said mobile was returned by opposite party No.3 to the complainant after 2/3 days by assuring the fine tuning of the problem. But it was like a bolt from blue for the complainant when said mobile stopped working and was completely dead after two days from the date of delivery of the device by the opposite party No.3. The complainant again visited opposite party No.3 and the defect was brought to the knowledge of opposite party No.3 and accordingly, a job sheet was prepared and the complainant was told that the mobile is to be sent to Bangalore for further rectification and the complainant was further assured that this time the said mobile phone will be rectified. The mobile phone was returned to the complainant after approximately 1-1/2 months with an assurance that now there is no fault in the said mobile phone and the fault, which existed has been rectified. But to the utter surprise of the complainant the defect still subsists and nothing productive could be done on the part of opposite party No.3, rather the condition of the mobile reached from bad to worst as the same now started creating starting problem. Thereafter on 15.1.2014, the complainant again visited the opposite party No.3 and requested the official concern to do the needful and to rectify the problem in the said mobile and as usual, again a job sheet was prepared and assurance was given that said mobile will be rectified and the complainant was directed to come on 17.1.2014 to know about the fate of abovesaid mobile. But, to his wits end, when the complainant received back the device and started the same in order to check the same, the complainant found that the problem was not rectified as the mobile again got shut down. At this, the official concern of opposite party No.3 took back said mobile and requested for some more time on the pretext that the same will be sent to the company office for proper action. Accordingly, the job card dated 15.1.2014 was returned to the complainant. It is important to mention that job card, which was issued while taking the mobile by opposite party No.3, has been taken back at the time of delivering the mobile. Thereafter, the complainant visited the opposite party No.3 many times to know about the fate of abovesaid mobile, but no satisfactory reply has been given to the complainant in this regard. The complainant many times requested the official concerned of opposite party No.3 to rectify the defect being the authorized service centre of opposite parties No.1 and 2 and to handover the mobile to the complainant after rectification, but the opposite party no.3 refused to listen to the requests of the complainant. Feeling aggrieved the the complainant thereafter made various negotiations with customer care executive of the company through emails, but all in vain, as the mobile is still with the opposite party and approximately three months had elapsed without rectifications of the problem and moreover, no satisfactory reply had ever been received by the complainant, till date, from the side of opposite parties. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 7.5.2014 upon the opposite parties on 8.5.2014, but the opposite parties failed to give any reply to the same On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for refund the price of the mobile handset alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 to 3 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that as per the information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant purchased his handset on 21.3.2013 and from that date the handset was working properly and there was no fault in the handset but the complainant in order to harass and pressurize the opposite parties firstly visited the office of opposite party No.3 on 15.1.2014 after the expiry of nine months approximately as the customer/complainant knows that there is a warranty of 12 months and the complainant with malafide intention to replace the handset filed the present complaint and on that date the complainant reported problem of restart in the handset and the customer/complainant was very eager for depositing his handset and the opposite party received the handset vide job sheet No.KJASPPB170114K2755. It is necessary to mention that the alleged problem occurred as complainant has not inserted the battery properly. So opposite party no.3 booked the handset of the complainant and told him to come after 2/3 days and when he again visited the office of opposite party No.3 to collect the handset, the engineer told the complainant to check the handset and when the complainant checked his handset then after 1/2 hour the battery of the handset was dead and opposite party No.3 again received the handset alongwith battery under the same job sheet number as battery was not in the stock. The engineer told the complainant to come after a week but complainant never turned back to receive his handset. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite party No.4 did not appear inspite of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C21 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and evidence of opposite parties No.1 to 3 closed by order due to non payment of cost.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 3.

7. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question on 21.3.2013 for Rs.8300/- from opposite party No.4 vide cash memo Ex.C1. According to the complainant, after few months from the date of purchase the mobile started creating problems and he gave his handset to opposite party No.3 service centre but it failed to rectify the defect inspite repeated visits. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and has also placed on record job sheet Ex.C2 which is dated 15.1.2014. On this job sheet, there is endorsement dated 17.1.2014 by complainant that he received his handset without problem solved. In their written reply, opposite parties No.1 to 3 have admitted that complainant visited the office of opposite party No.3 on 15.1.2014 and at that time there was problem of restart in the handset and complainant deposited his handset vide job sheet. They have further pleaded that complainant was told to come after 2/3 days and to collect the handset and when he again visited the office of opposite party No.3 to collect the handset, the engineer told him to check the handset and when he checked his handset then after 1/2 hour the battery of the handset was dead and opposite party No.3 again received the handset alongwith battery under the same job sheet. So these pleadings of opposite parties No.1 to 3 implies that they failed to rectify the defect in the handset of the complainant. So handset of the complainant developed defects during the warranty period and opposite parties failed to rectify the same inspite of repeated visits by the complainant. In the circumstances, the complainant is entitled to replacement of the handset which is still with the service centre.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.1 to 3 are directed to give new mobile handset of the same make and model to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in case the same model is not available then to refund its price to him. Since the complainant has also used the mobile handset for few months, as such there shall be no order as to cost or compensation. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

06.02.2015 Member President