O R D E R
Subhash Gupta, Member
The complainant has filed the present complaint against O.Ps under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that on 14.11.2013 complainant had purchased a Karbonn A-35 mobile phone for a sum of Rs.7,000/- from O.P-1. It is alleged that within one week of the purchase of the said mobile phone it started giving problems. Complainant contacted the O.P-1 which sent him to O.P-2 i.e. N.D. Traders Authorized Service Centre. It is further alleged that the O.P-2 refreshed the said mobile phone and it started functioning. Again after 15-20 days the mobile phone started creating the same problems. Several visits to the centre of O.P-2 did not lead to solving of the problem. After sometime the complainant was informed that the battery has worn-out. Later on the complainant was informed that the motherboard of the handset is defective due to which the phone cannot be charged and is creating problems. It has been pleaded that the defective handset has been sold to the complainant for which the present complaint has been filed seeking refund of the cost price of the handset.
2. Notice of the complaint was served on the O.Ps but as none appeared it were proceeded ex-parte vide orders dated 28.01.2016. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as alleged in the complaint.
3. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submission of the complainant.
4. From the perusal of record we find that complainant has placed on record invoice vide bill No.140 dated 14.11.2013, Delhi which shows that Karbonn A-35 mobile phone was purchased by the complainant for Rs.7,000/- from O.P-1. The complainant has also placed on record copy of the job card dated 18.10.2014 issued by O.P-2 which shows that there was some problem in the battery. No other document in support of the complaint except stated above have been filed by the complainant.
5. A close scrutiny of the documents reveals that the mobile handset for the first time was given for repairs just one month before the expiry of period of warranty.
6. The averments made in the complaint and in the affidavit remain uncontroverted and there is no reasons to disbelieve the same. In our view the interest of justice would be met if 40% of the cost of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.3,000/- is awarded to the complainant. The complainant is also awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 13th day of May, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
