DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.214 of 27-03-2014

Decided on 03-06-2014

Rajeev Narang S/o Prithvi Chand S/o Milkhi Raj R/o House No.14105, St.No.7, Ganesha Basti, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Karbonn Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd., D-170, Okhla, Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110020, through its Manager/Authorized person.

2.Vintage Communication, Karbonn Authorized Service Station, Sargam Complex, Near Public Library, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Manager.

3.G.M Communication (2013-14) 28, The Mall, Bathinda.

.......Opposite party

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

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Ashu Bansal, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite party: Opposite parties ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant 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 Karbonn mobile handset model S-1 for Rs.10,000/- from the opposite party No.3, manufactured by the opposite party No.1 with one year warranty. In the last week of May, 2013 the abovesaid mobile handset started giving problem in voice and ringer, as ring of incoming calls or message tones or any other warning tones cannot be heard and whenever the complainant switched on it for talking to any person, the voice of other person could not be heard. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3, it asked him to approach the opposite party No.2, an authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2, it kept the abovesaid mobile handset for repair and told him that there is some problem in it and it would take time to repair the mobile handset in question and returned him his mobile handset after 10 days and assured him that the defect has been removed and there would be no defect in it in future. After less than one month the mobile handset in question again started giving the same problem and the complainant approached the opposite party No.2, it retained the abovesaid mobile handset and returned it to him after 15 days. In the last week of September, 2013 the abovesaid mobile handset again started giving the same problem, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 1.10.2013, it again retained the abovesaid mobile handset and conveyed him that the problem would not occur in it in future and told him that the voice problem would be rectified and returned him the mobile handset in question after 15 days. After 20 days again the abovesaid mobile handset started giving the same problem and the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 on 5.11.2013, it retained the abovesaid mobile handset and told him that the same problem has arisen again. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 after 15 days to collect his mobile handset, it returned him the mobile handset in question after another 10 days. After one month the abovesaid mobile handset again started giving the same problem and complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 on 16.12.2013, it retained the mobile handset in question and after 10 days the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 to collect his mobile handset, it stated that its warehouse has changed so it would take more time for repair and returned him the abovesaid mobile handset after 40 days. In the last week of January, 2014 the abovesaid mobile handset started giving 'hanging' problem as it switch off itself without any reason and started showing wrong numbers alongwith the pictures when the complainant uses 'Whats App'. On 5.2.2014, the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 with new problem and requested it that new problem has arisen in it, as the fault could not be rectified by the opposite party No.2 as such he requested for the refund of its price or replace it with new one, but the opposite party No.2 retained it admitting that there is manufacturing defect in it and conveyed him that it would try once again to rectify the abovesaid mobile handset and after that if it would not be rectified, the price of the mobile handset would be refunded or replaced with new one. After 10 days the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 to collect his mobile handset and found that it has not been rectified. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 either to refund the price of the mobile handset in question or to replace it with new one, but it told him that it would send the abovesaid mobile handset to Delhi and would take minimum 2 months to solve the problem and asked him to deposit the mobile handset as it was aware that the warranty of the abovesaid mobile handset is going to be expired. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- alongwith interest, cost and compensation.

2. Registered notice has been sent to the opposite party No.1 on dated 9.4.2014 vide postal receipt No.A RP361597421IN and the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are served by hand on dated 10.4.2014 but despite receiving the summons, none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties before this Forum, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against them.

3. The complainant has led ex-parte evidence to support his allegations. He has produced Ex.C1, his own affidavit dated 26.2.2014; Ex.C2:-Photocopy of retail invoice and Ex.C3 to Ex.C6:-Photocopies of customer receipt.

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

5. The complainant has purchased one mobile Karbonn model S-1 for Rs.10,000/- on 5.4.2013 vide Ex-C2, it became defective soon after its purchase. The complainant has placed on file job sheets, Ex.C3 to Ex.C6. A perusal of Job Sheet dated 5.11.2013, Ex.C3, shows that the problem in the abovesaid mobile handset were regarding 'Low ringtone/VOC19'. Thereafter the problems reported by the complainant in the mobile handset in question vide Ex.C4 on dated 1.10.2013 of 'Low incoming voice/VOC17'. Vide Ex.C5 the complainant has complaint regarding 'No ringtone/VOC20' on dated 16.12.2013. After that on 5.2.2014 as per job sheet, Ex.C6, the problems in the mobile handset in question were regarding 'Phone hang/VOC37'. The complainant has purchased the mobile handset in question on 5.4.2013 with one year warranty and all the problems have occurred during the warranty period.

6. The opposite parties did not find it appropriate to appear and file their written statement before this Forum, thus this act and conduct on their part itself shows that they were fully aware of the fact that the mobile handset in question had the manufacturing defect in it. The complainant has deposited his mobile handset for the repair with the opposite parties many times. The opposite party No.2 has kept the mobile handset in question on many occasions for 10 days or more, but unable to resolve the problems relating to the abovesaid mobile handset. The complainant has specifically mentioned in Para No.7 of his complaint that he left his mobile handset with the opposite party No.2 for more than 100 days for the purpose of repair and almost 15 times he visited the opposite party Nos.2 and 3. The version of the complainant is almost proved from the job sheets placed on file by him from Ex.C3 to Ex.C6.

7. Thus from the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file it is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 as after repeated repairs of the mobile handset in question, they have failed to rectify the problem in it.

8. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.3. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- (As per Ex.C2) to the complainant. At the same time the complainant will handover the mobile handset in question to the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

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

10. In case of non-compliance within the stipulated period, the interest @9% per annum will yield on the amount of Rs.10,000/- till realization.

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:-

03-06-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member