BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No. 224 of 2014

Date of Instt. 09.7.2014

Date of Decision :09.12.2014

Ramandeep Singh Khinda aged about 35 years son of Late Santokh Singh Khinda, R/o H.No.175, New Gandhi Nagar, Ravi Dass School Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Mobile House, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar, through its Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative.

2. Harsehaj Communication, Auth. Service Centre Karbonn Mobiles, Plot No.172, 2nd Floor, New Vijay Nagar, Opp.Hakim Tilak Raj Kapoor, TV Centre Road, Jalandhar, through its Prop/Partner/Manager/Authorized Representative

3. Jaina Mobile India Pvt Ltd, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhit-110020, through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.

Opposite party No.1 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a mobile phone model Karbonn A21, bearing IMEI No.911240902995919 for Rs.6700 from opposite party No.1 vide cash memo/invoice No.20686 dated 1.8.2013. One year warranty was given for the above said mobile. Within warranty period, in the month of April 2014, the above said mobile phone became out of order. Its display failed to work. The complainant told the above defect to opposite party No.1 who advised the complainant to contact opposite party no.2. On 17.4.2014 the complainant handed over the defective mobile phone to opposite party No.2 who checked and after check-up, kept it with them for repair. The opposite party No.2 gave a service job sheet bearing No.KJASPPB170414K6280 dated 17.4.2014 to complainant and told the complainant that the said mobile phone would be repaired within one month. After one month when the complainant went to opposite party No.2 to take back the handset, the opposite party No.2 demanded from the complainant the sum of Rs.3800/- for repair and replacement of display. Being under warranty, the complainant refused to give this huge amount to opposite party No.2. Then the complainant demanded back his mobile phone. The opposite party No.2 went inside service room and brought the mobile handset to handover the same to the complainant. When the complainant saw the mobile handset, it was un-repaired, totally opened and its camera was misplaced by opposite party No.2. So, the complainant refused to accept the mobile handset which was un-repaired and without camera. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the mobile handset in question with new one or to return its price i.e Rs.6700/-. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that as per the information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant purchased his handset on 1.8.2013 and from that date the handset was working properly and there was no fault in the handset and no defect occurred in the handset but the complainant in order to harass and pressurize the opposite parties firstly visited the office of opposite party No.2 after eleven months and when the opposite party No.2 checked the handset then the opposite party No.2 found that complainant had already got repaired the handset from outside which was not the authorized service centre of opposite party No.3 as the seals of the handset were broken and under these circumstances, the handset was not covered under warranty. It is also necessary to mention here that this is the policy of the company that if anybody has got repaired his handset apart from the authorized service centre then in that case the handset was not covered under the warranty conditions. This fact was clearly told to the complainant and estimated cost for the repair was told to the complainant and the complainant agreed to pay the estimated cost then the opposite party No.2 after the acceptance from the complainant booked the handset of the complainant and issued the job sheet and repaired the handset. It is also necessary to mention here that the fact that the handset was out of warranty was clearly mentioned in the job sheet. But the complainant did not turn back to receive the handset and rather in order to fulfill his in-genuine and unreasonable demand, the complainant filed the present complaint. They denied other material averments of the complaint.

3. Upon notice, opposite party 1 did not appear in-spite of service and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB along with copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed his evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and evidence of opposite parties No.2 & 3 closed due to non payment of cost and further due to fact that no evidence on their behalf was present inspite of last opportunity.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant and learned counsel for opposite parties No.2 & 3.

7. It is not disputed that complainant purchased the mobile handset in question vide retail invoice dated 1.8.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.6700/-. According to the complainant in April 2014 the mobile handset became defective and it display failed to work and he gave the mobile handset to opposite party No.2 for repair who issued job sheet Ex.C-2 but when he went to receive the mobile handset, the opposite party No.2 demanded Rs.3800/- for repair and replacement of its display. Complainant contended that during warranty period, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 are bound to repair the handset free of cost. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties No.2 and 3 that on 17.4.2014 the complainant visited opposite party No.2 and after checking the mobile handset it was found that it has been got repaired from outside from an unauthorized service centre as the seals of the handset were broken and as such the handset was not covered under the warranty and this fact was specifically mentioned in the job sheet Ex.C-2. He contended that complainant can get his handset repaired on payment of charges and is not entitled to repair free of cost. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties No.2 and 3. It is in the affidavit Ex.OPW1/A of Bharpreet Singh, Authorized Representative/Manager of opposite party No.2 that when the opposite party No.2 checked the handset then it was found that complainant has already got repaired the handset from outside which was not authorized service centre of opposite party No.3 as seals of the handset were broken and under these circumstances the handset was not covered under warranty. It is further in his affidavit that this fact was clearly told to the complainant and estimated cost for the repair was told to him and the complainant agreed to pay the estimated cost, then the opposite party No.2 booked the handset and issued the job sheet and repaired the handset. Ex.C-2 is service job sheet issued by the opposite party No.2 wherein against the coloumn of warranty status O/W i.e out of warranty is specifically mentioned. In this affidavit Ex.CB, the complainant has stated that complainant had not brought original bill with him and opposite party No.2 told the complainant if the original bill is not produced then the handset would be considered as out of warranty and if the bill is produced it would be under warranty and no charges will be taken for repair and replacement of display. It is further in his affidavit that later on bill was found and he produced the original bill to opposite party No.2. This version of the complainant can not be accepted as in the service job sheet date of purchase 1.8.2013 is mentioned. The name of the customer is also mentioned in it. The service centre can verify the fact that any particular mobile handset is out of warranty period or not from the computerized data available with it. This fact can be verified by service centre even in absence of the bill or retail invoice. Once the SIM is activated in the mobile handset it is automatically feeded in the data available at service centre. So the above version of the complainant can not be accepted. The above version was not pleaded by the complainant in his complaint and was introduced for the first time in his affidavit Ex.CB which was tendered after filing of written reply by the opposite parties No.2 and 3. On the service job sheet Ex.C-2 out of warranty is specifically mentioned. As such the complainant can not claim repair of the mobile handset free of charges during warranty. As per warranty conditions if the mobile handset is got repaired from some unauthorized service centre or dealer, the warranty becomes avoid.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed. However, the complainant can get the handset repaired from opposite party No.2 on payment of charges. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

8.12.2014 Member President