BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.418 of 2014

Date of Instt. 25.11.2014

Date of Decision :07.04.2015

Rajiv Kumar Sharma son of Mulakh Raj Sharma R/o 54 Arjun Nagar, Lamba Pind Road, Near St.Soldier School, P.O.Chogitti Jalandhar City-144009.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Karbonn Mobiles # 39/13, Off 7th main, HAL 2nd Stage Appareddy Palya, Indiranagar, Banglore-560038.

2. Karbonn Authorized Service Centre 172, 2nd Floor, New Vijay Nagar, Opp.Hakeem Tilak Raj Kapoor, Near Roto Auto and TV Centre Jalandhar City.

3. Mobile House, H.O.Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar-144001.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OPs No.l1 & 2.

Opposite party No.3 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased a mobile set model A8 from opposite party No.3 worth Rs.5900/- against invoice No.30734 dated 16.9.2013. The mobile hardly worked for a period of 8 to 10 months thereafter battery defect arose in the mobile. He approached to the opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 for the defect and they told that the battery is defective and showed the non availability of the battery of the said mobile model Karbonn A8. He approached the market for the purchase of battery but surprisingly every shopkeeper showed the non availability of the battery. He has visited almost all the shopkeepers for the purchase of battery but the battery of this set is not available in the market. Complainant approached to service centre, opposite party No.2 for the arrangement of battery from the opposite party No.2 between 16.8.2014 to 19.8.2014 and they gave the complaint No.K9618. Complainant sent the mail to the office of Karbonn company at support@jainaindia.com on 21.10.2014 and they replied him on 22.10.2014 for solving the problem within a very short period of time but till date they have done nothing. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for refund the price of the mobile handset in question. He has also claimed compensation.

2. Upon notice opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written reply, inter-alia, pleading that as per information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant has purchased the handset on 16.9.2013 and from that date the handset was working properly and there was no fault in the handset but after the warranty period, due to overheat the battery of the handset was damaged and the complainant visited the opposite party No.2 and told the problem in the handset and the engineer after preliminary checking told that due to overcharging of the handset, the battery of the handset was damaged and if the complainant wants the new battery then the complainant has to pay the charges for the same but the complainant refused to pay and filed the present false and frivolous complaint. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

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

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and evidence of opposite parties No.1 & 2 closed by order.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 2.

7. The complainant purchased the handset in question from opposite party No.3 vide retail invoice dated 16.9.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.5900/-. The complainant is alleging defect in the battery. According to the complainant, the battery is neither available in the market nor opposite party No.2 i.e service centre is providing the same. The complainant has placed on record email dated 21.10.2014 Ex.C2, email dated 22.10.2014 Ex.C3 and email dated 22.10.2014 Ex.C4. The complainant purchased mobile handset on 16.9.2013. So all the above said emails are after the warranty period of one year. In his affidavit Ex.OPW1/A,Bharpreet Singh, Authorized Representative of the service centre has stated that the complainant purchased the handset on 16.9.2014 and from that date the handset was working properly and there was no fault in it but after the warranty period, due to overheat the battery of the handset was damaged and the complainant visited the opposite party No.2 and told the problem in the handset and the engineer after checking told that due to overcharging of the handset, the battery was damaged and if the complainant wants new battery then the complainant has to pay the charges of the same but the complainant refused to pay and filed the present false complaint. So as per this affidavit also complainant has visited service centre after warranty period. After warranty period, if the complainant wants new battery then he has to pay the requisite charges. He may approach the opposite party No.2 or any other service centre of opposite party No.1 for purchase of the battery against payment. The complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.

8. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

07.04.2015 Member Member President