Haryana

Ambala

CC/262/2014

SACHIN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANVI COMMUNICATION - Opp.Party(s)

D.K. Choudhary

04 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM :

                                                         AMBALA

                     Complaint Case No.            :       262 OF 2014

                        Date of Institution              :       17-09-2014

                        Date of Decision                 :       04.08.2016

 

Sachin Kumar son of Sh. Jai Bhagwan R/o H.No.1615/80F, New Model Colony, Ambala City.

                                                                                                                                   :::::::Complainant.

                                                                                   Versus

1.             Maanvi Communication,425 Manali House, Reliance Web World , Ambala City, through its Proprietor/Partner.

2.             Karboon authorized Service Centre, Opposite LG Electronics Plaza, Near D.K.Trading Co., Court Road, Ambala City, through its Manager.

3.             Jaina Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., D-170,Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 (India) through its Chairman/ Managing Director.

:::::::Opposite Parties.

 

        Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:            SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

 

Present:-           Sh. D.K.Chaudhary, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        OP No.1 ex-parte.

                        Sh. Sandeep Kashyap, Adv. counsel for OPs No.2 & 3                       

               O R D E R

1.           Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased Karboon Mobile A 1+ Dual sim android vide bill No. 1456 dated 14.9.2013  bearing I.M.E.I. (1) No. 911322451247346 &  I.M.E.I.(2)No.911322451247353 from OP No.1 in a sum of Rs.3500/- with 1 year warranty. After about one  month, the said mobile phone started giving problems i.e. charging problem, defect in power button and hanging due to manufacturing defect. So, the complainant approached to OP No.1 where the OP No.1 advised the complainant to approach OP No2 i.e authorized service centre and thus complainant contacted the OP No.2 for the above said defects who after retaining the mobile set for some days returned the same with the assurance that the problems have been rectified. Again in the month of April 2014 complainant again contacted the OP No.2  for the same problems where the OP No.2 again kept the mobile set and asked the complainant to come after some days for collection of his mobile. In the month of May,2014 when complainant visited the OP No.2 for collection of the set in question OP No.2 told the complainant that this mobile cannot be rectified. Lastly, the complainant served regd. legal notice upon the OPs through his counsel but no reply or satisfactorily response from the OPs which is a deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

 

 

2.          Notice of complaint was duly served upon OP’s through Regd. Post but OP No.1 did not bother to appear despite service and thus he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 03-6-2015 whereas OP no. 2 & 3 appeared through counsel and submitted reply raising preliminary objections qua non maintainability of complaint , no cause of action against the answering respondent and complainant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the true & material facts by misrepresenting & misinterpreting  and making false allegations, the complaint of the complainant is baseless, barred by limitation, devoid of merits and this Hon’ble Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain & adjudicate upon the present complaint. On merits, it  has  been  urged that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question but no complaint was ever received by the OP  from the complainant and the complaint without any technical/ Expert report is not maintainable.  In the end, OP No. 2 &3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

 

       3.         To prove his contention, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C -X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1  to C-6  and closed the evidence whereas counsel for OPs No.2 & 3 tendered affidavit of Sushil Kumar as Annexure R-X alongwith documents as Annexure R1 & Annexure R 2 and closed his evidence on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3.

 

 

4.          We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties  and gone through the case file minutely. The main grievance of the complainant is that he purchased Karboon Mobile A 1+ Dual sim android vide bill No. 1456 dated 14.9.2013  bearing I.M.E.I.(1) No. 911322451247346 & I.M.E.I. (2) No.911322451247353 from OP No.1 in a sum of Rs.3500/- with 1 year warranty which became defective within one month of its purchase i.e. during the warranty period and  OPs failed to rectify the defects or replace the Mobile set in question, which is admittedly a deficiency in service on their part. On the other hand, OP’s counsel rebutted the contention of complainant by arguing that no complaint was ever received  by OPs from complainant till date as alleged and thus they are not deficient.

 

5.          After hearing the parties and going through the record, it is crystal clear from the document Annexure C-2 that the Mobile set in question is of the OP Company which was  sold  by OP No.1 to the complainant on 14-9-2013. Further it is also not in dispute that the Mobile set was having a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase and became defective during the warranty period. It is also not in dispute that the complainant made complaint to the OP No.2 which is authorized service centre of the OP company where they retained  the mobile set in dispute for repair but defects could not be rectified. Further, to strengthen his case, the complainant  has relied upon the case law reported in 2008(1) CLT Page 15 rendered by Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as Soni Erricson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal and 2007 (1) CLT Page 614 passed by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in case titled as Head Marketing and Communication, Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor and other wherein it is held that inspite of repair of mobile set, it did not work and thus observed that the handset was having inherent defects and refund of cost of mobile was ordered.  On the other hand, OPs contention that the complainant never made any complaint and has filed frivolous complaint after utilizing the mobile in question more than 1 years only to grab compensation from the Ops  is not tenable since they have admitted in preliminary objection no.8 of written statement that in the month of April 2014, complainant visited the answering respondents for problem of “on & off” in the Mobile set. So, the version of OPs is self contradictory and is not believable.

 

 

                Accordingly in view of the facts discussed above,  we have come to the conclusion that the Mobile set sold to the complainant by OP No.1  was having inherent defect from its very beginning and was not rectified by the OPs  during the warranty period despite various visits of the complainant to their service centre i.e. OP No.2. Hence, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by OPs. Therefore, we accept the complaint and direct the OPs to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

                (i)     to return the cost of mobile set  i.e. Rs.3,500/- to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint to till date.

               (ii)     to pay  Rs. 3000/- as  compensation  for  harassment and mental agony etc.

              (iii)      also to pay Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation.

Further the aforesaid order/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced:04/08/2016                                

                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                      ( A.K.SARDANA)  

                                                                              PRESIDENT

 

                                           Sd/-

                            ( PUSHPENDER KUMAR )

                                              MEMBER