Consumer Complaint No. 235 of 2015

Date of filing: 10.12.2015                                                            Date of disposal: 21.12.2016

Complainant:               Samajtrantra Debnath, S/o. Balaram Debnath, Village: Rangamati, Uttar Bazar, Post Office: Saktigarh, Police Station & District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 149. 

-V E R S U S-

Opposite Party:    1.     Manager, Karbonn (Pvt) Ltd, United Telelinks, Bangalore, Office: 7 Min Hall, II Stage Indira Nagar, Bangalore, 560 038, Karnataka.

2.      N.K. Electronics, represented by proprietor, Green Plaza, Shop No. G-29, Ground Floor, 20 F, Karl Marx Sarani, Khidirpur, Kolkata – 23.

3.      Mukherjee Telecom, represented by Proprietor, Baranilpur More, Anandapally, Burdwan – 713 103.

Present:      Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.

                        Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.

           Hon’ble Member:  Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.

Appeared for the Complainant:                Ld. Advocate, Balaram Debnath.

Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1: Deepak Kumar Pandey, Autho. Representative.

Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2: None. 

Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 3:  Piyush Mukherjee, Autho. Representative.

J U D G E M E N T

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the Ops have sold a defective mobile set and did not rectify the same.

The fact of the complaint is that the complainant purchased a mobile set of “KARBONN” make on 16.5.2014 for an amount of Rs. 4,500=00 whose Model No. ‘A5s’, IMEI No. 911368900030585 and invoice no. is 1026. On 11.11.2014 the complainant found that the battery of the mobile set has been inactive. Thereafter he brought it to the local service centre i.e. OP-3 for inspection of the mobile set. The OP-3 said to the complainant that it would carry Rs. 140=00 for repairing. Accordingly, the complainant deposited Rs. 140=00 to the OP-3 but the OP-3 did not return the said mobile set. The complainant visited the office of the service centre (Op-3) on 17.4.2015 & 07.5.2015 but he did not get the battery repaired. Then he asked the OP-3 to give him new battery but the OP-3 did not pay any heed to the complainant. Thereafter, on 18.5.2015 an Advocate’s notice was sent to the OP-1&3 but he did not get any reply from them. Then he was compelled to file this complaint before this ld. Forum. He prayed for refund of the price of the mobile set i.e. Rs. 4,500=00, Rs. 140=00 as deposited for repairing his battery and other expenses totaling to Rs. 9,190=00.

Notices were served upon the OP-1, 2 & 3. OP-1&3 contested the case by filing written versions separately. Though the notice was served upon the OP-2 but the OP-2 did not appear before this Forum nor filed written version to contest the case. So the case was heard ex parte against the OP-2.

OP-1 stated in his written version that the complainant visited their service centre on 07.4.2015 to purchase battery of Model No. ‘A5s’. But at that point of time no battery was available in their stock because the model has gone old. So the OP-1 requested the complainant to advance Rs. 140=00 for new battery and same was deposited by the complainant. OP-1 asked the complainant to visit their service centre after 15 days. Though the complainant visited their office but the OP-1 was unable to provide the battery and requested to come after one week. But the complainant did not agree to wait for a single day and demanded his money advanced to return back and the OP-1 returned the same amount to the complainant. After getting the battery from the head office, the OP-1 informed the same to the complainant on mobile to collect the battery from the service centre but the complainant did not agree to take battery and demanded for Rs. 1,000=00 plus battery which was not possible for them as it was beyond warranty period.  After appearance in the ld. Forum getting the notice from this office, OP-1 agreed to replace the battery free of cost to the complainant but the complainant did not agree to settle the case.

Op-3 also submitted their written version on affidavit. OP-3 also stated that the complainant visited their service centre on 07.4.2015 to purchase battery of Model No. ‘A5s’. OP-3 also confirmed that no battery was in their stock at that time because of old model and requested the complainant to advance Rs. 140=00 for battery which the complainant deposited with the OP-1. On 27.4.2015 the complainant asked for the battery but the OP-3 requested him to come after one week to receive the battery. But the complainant did not agree for a single day and demanded his amount to return back to the complainant. After getting the battery from the head office it was informed by the OP-3 to the complainant on mobile to collect the battery from service centre on 30.4.2015 but the complainant did not agree to take the battery and demanded Rs. 1,000 plus battery which was not possible for the OP-3 to comply.

Decision with reasons:-

Heard the argument from the complainant and the OP-1&3 at length. Perused all the documents, namely, money receipt, warranty card, job sheet, cash sheet, legal notice through registered post and the relevant mobile battery. It is seen from the documents that the complainant purchased the mobile on 16.5.2014. Though the mobile was inactive due to battery problem on 11.11.2014 but he visited the office of the service centre on 07.4.2015 for purchasing the battery for Model No. ‘A5s’ i.e. after six months from the warranty period of the battery. It is evident that at the first appearance of the OP-1&3 after getting notice from this ld. Forum, both of them agreed to replace the battery free of cost after receiving from the head office on 30.4.2015. The complainant did not agree to receive the same but demanded Rs. 1,000=00 plus battery. As the OP-1&3 did not agree to the complainant’s proposal, hence, OP-1&3 argued the case by filing written version on affidavit.

            Perusing all the papers and hearing the argument from the complainant and the OP-1&3 it is seen that the complainant came to the OP-1 and OP-3 after lapsing of warranty period from the date of purchase of the said mobile. So the complainant is not entitled to get back his mobile back at free of cost. Hence, the complainant fails to substantiate his case. Accordingly, it is

O r d e r e d

that the complaint is dismissed on contest against the OP-1&3 and dismissed ex parte against the OP-2without any cost.

Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.

                (Asoke Kumar Mandal)        

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                      President      

                                                                                                           DCDRF, Burdwan

                    (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)

                       Member

                     DCDRF, Burdwan

                                                      (Silpi Majumder)                        (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)

                                                          Member                                             Member

                                                     DCDRF, Burdwan                            DCDRF, Burdwan