Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/974/2016

Davinder Chand Pavar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karbonn Service Center - Opp.Party(s)

Kirti Kumar

20 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/974/2016
Date of Institution	:	25/10/2016
Date of Decision	:	20/09/2017

 

Davinder Chand Pavar S/o Sh. Anil Kumar, R/o H.No.1033/2, B.M.K. Manimajra, Chandigarh-160101.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]    Karbonn Service Centre, M/s Davindera Communications, Shop No. 2212/1, Pipli Wala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor or its Manager or any other Authorized Representative.

[2]    Mehta Traders, SCO 223, Motor Market, Near Local Bus Stand, Manimajra, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor or its Manager or any other Authorized Representative.

[3]    Karbonn Mobiles, #39/13, Office 7^th MAIN, HAL-2^nd Stage Appareded Palya, Indira Nagar, Bangalore – 560038, through its Proprietor or its Manager or any other Authorized Representative.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Kirti Kumar, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 ex-parte.
	:	Sh. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Counsel for OP No.3.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 07.04.2016, the complainant purchased a new Karbonn Quattro-L52VR (Dual Sim) mobile phone from Opposite Party No.2 vide bill Annexure C-1. It has been alleged that the said mobile phone, after some time, started giving problems in its touch screen, display and mike etc. Accordingly, on 18.06.2016 the Complainant submitted the mobile phone with Opposite Party No.1, who returned the same after repairs on 04.07.2016. After some time of its repair, when the same problems occurred, the Complainant again submitted the mobile phone with the Opposite Party No.1 on 11.07.2016, who returned the same on 01.08.2016 with an assurance that there would be no problem in the mobile phone in future. Thereafter, on 08.08.2016, again the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 on facing identical issues with a specific request either to replace the mobile phone or to repair it in a proper manner. However, instead of doing the needful, when the Opposite Party No.1 dilly dallied the matter on one pretext or the other, the Complainant wrote e-mails to the Opposite Party No.1 to redress his grievance, but no appropriate steps were taken by the Opposite Parties. Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. Since, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 despite service, therefore, they was proceeded ex-parte.
3.         The Opposite Party No.3 in its written reply has not disputed the factual matrix of the case. However, it has been averred that when the Complainant approached to Service Centre, at that time the mobile phone was declared DOA and offered to the Complainant for replacement, but the Complainant did not turn back to the Service Centre to take new handset. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the Ld. Counsel for the contesting parties.
6.         The expression ‘defect’ as defined in Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, reads thus:-

“defect” means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force (under any contract, express or implied or) as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.”    

                Therefore, to establish any defect in the goods, it has to be proved by the Complainant that (a) there is a fault, imperfection or shortcoming; (b) such fault, imperfection etc. is in the quality, standard, etc.; (c) which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force; or (d) which is claimed by the Trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods. 

7.         In the present case, in so far as the question of quality and standard of mobile handset is concerned, the same having been manufactured by Karbonn Mobiles – a reputed company, it can safely be presumed that if not better, the quality and standard of handset manufactured by above company would be at least at par with the quality and standard of other manufacturers of similar product. Now, the question arises as to whether the Complainant has proved on record that there exists defects in the mobile handset purchased. The documentary evidence brought on record by the Complainant to prove that the handset was defective, is adequate to substantiate that the handset was defective and speaks volumes about the quality and standard of the handset manufactured by the above company. No customer will purchase a product with a view to purchase headache. In the case of M/s Dominant Business Group Vs. A.K. Bansal and Co., Appeal No. 77 of 2016, decided on 28.06.2016, the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh has categorically observed that it is not expected that after purchase of a new machine, it would collapse within few months, as had happened in that case. Importantly, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant, as also to support the stand taken by the Opposite Party No.3 and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted.  Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.3 has argued that when the Complainant approached the Service Centre, the mobile handset was declared DOA and a replacement was offered to him, but the Complainant did not turn back to the Service Centre to collect the same. However, we are not satisfied with this limb of arguments. The onus to prove the aforesaid fact lay at the door of the Opposite Party No.3. However, there is no concrete evidence regarding the said fact showing that any alleged offer of replacement was ever made or given to the Complainant, but he did not turn up to take the new handset, thus the above assertion is held to be hollow. The sequence of above leads to irresistible conclusion that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile handset purchased by the Complainant and simply by stating that repair was effected from time to time, relief cannot be declined to a consumer.
8.         No doubt, the mobile handset was under warranty for a period of one year. However, once it is proved on record that there is defect, imperfection in the quality of product and there is a manufacturing defect, the warranty amounts to guarantee to replace the product/ refund the amount charged against the product sold. A consumer would not like to purchase headache as is happened in the present case. Throughout after its purchase, the mobile handset failed to give satisfactory performance which is expected from a product manufactured and sold by a reputed company like Opposite Party No.3.   
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint, deserves to succeed and the same is allowed.  The Opposite Parties are directed as under :-

(i)     To refund to the price of the mobile handset amounting to Rs.8500/- to the Complainant;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.4,500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.4,500/- as costs of litigation.

10.         This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
20/09/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rajan Dewan]
	Member	President
“Dutt”