BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No. 236 of 2014

Date of Instt. 16.7.2014

Date of Decision :8.12.2014

Vikas Kumar aged about 25 years son of Brij Mohan, VPO Khiwa Tehsil Nakodar, District 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 on 19.7.2013 the complainant purchased a mobile phone model Karbonn S-5, IMEI No.911309351675270 for Rs.10,500 from opposite party No.1 vide cash memo/invoice No.18141 dated 19.7.2013. One year warranty was given for the above said mobile and at the time of sale of above said mobile handset the opposite party No.1 told the complainant that in case of any complaint or defect arising in the said mobile handset the same would be repaired immediately free of cost by their authorized service centre located at Jalandhar or the handset would be replaced with new one if the repair is not done satisfactory. Within warranty period, in the first week of February 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 25.2.2014 the complainant went to opposite party No.2 and told about the above said defect. 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.KJASPPB170214K4203 dated 26.2.2014 to complainant and told the complainant that the said mobile phone would be repaired within 25 days. After 25 days when the complainant went to opposite party No.2 to take back the handset, the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that the said handset has been sent to Delhi for proper repair. The complainant enquired from opposite party No.3 whether the said handset has been sent by opposite party No.2 or not. The opposite party No.3 told the complainant that the said handset has reached with them for repair and it would take 15-20 days for repair. The complainant again telephoned opposite party No.3 after 20 days but the opposite party No.3 told the complainant that its part is not available with them, so, it would take more 15 days for repair. Again after 15 days, the complainant phoned the opposite party No.3 thrice but every time the opposite party No.3 told the complainant that neither it has been repaired nor its part is available with them. Again and again the complainant went to opposite party No.2 and phoned the opposite party No.3 and requested to repair the display free of cost being under warranty period but every time the opposite parties no.2 & 3 told the complainant that the said set would neither be repaired nor replaced nor its defective part is available with them. Despite so many visits and requests made by complainant to opposite parties No.2 & 3 the opposite parties No.2 and 3 neither repaired the defective mobile handset nor replaced the same. However, in lieu of defective mobile the opposite party No.3 sent another mobile of other IMEI number which the complainant collected from opposite party No.2 on 1.7.2014. But this mobile also became defective because after 45 minutes use its display commenced shaking and shivering, its photo & all words appear dim which can not be seen easily. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile i.e Rs.10,500/-. 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 19.7.2013 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.3 after seven months and at that time there was problem in the mother board of the mobile phone and the opposite party no.2 asked the complainant that the mother board can be replaced but the complainant refused for the same and insisted the opposite party No.2 to swap the handset and for the customer/complainant satisfaction the opposite party No.2 after getting the approval from the head office i.e opposite party No.3 swapped the handset and called the complainant to visit the office of opposite party No.2 for receiving the handset and after that the complainant visited the office of opposite party and checked the handset, then immediately the complainant was very aggressive and told the opposite party No.2 that he does not want the same model and to give the new model and when the opposite party No.2 refused, then the complainant threatened the opposite party No.2 that if the opposite parties will not give the upper model then the complainant will file the consumer complaint before the consumer court. Then the opposite parties requested the complainant that his handset was swapped and the new handset was having no defect and there is no policy in the company to swap the handset with the upper model and the complainant without listening anything further threatened the opposite parties now he will see them in the court and returned back without receiving the handset and filed the present complaint. The swapped handset is still lying with the opposite party No.2 and the complainant in order to full his in-genuine and unreasonable demand, has filed the present complaint and only on this score the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. 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, learned counsel for the 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.

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

7. Complainant purchased the mobile handset in question vide retail invoice dated 19.7.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.10,500/-. According to the complainant the mobile handset became defective and it was given to opposite party No.2. In their written reply, the opposite party No.2 has admitted that mobile handset is lying with them. In their written reply, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 have pleaded that there was problem in the mother board of the mobile phone and the opposite party no.2 asked the complainant that the mother board can be replaced but the complainant refused for the same. The mother board of the mobile handset is main part of the mobile. It clearly suggest that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. So the opposite party No.3 who is manufacturer of the mobile handset in question is liable to replace the same with new one.

8. Consequently, the present complaint is accepted and opposite party No.3 is directed to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model and if the same model is not available then to refund its price to the complainant. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. 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