BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.68 of 2015

Date of Instt. 26.02.2015

Date of Decision :04.06.2015

Vinod Kumar son of Satpal aged about 30 years, EG 116/2, Moh.Ladowali, Near BSF Chowk, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Mobile House, EK231/1, Old Divn No.3, Market, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar, through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Representative.

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

3. Karbonn Mobiles, No.39/13 Off 7th Main Hall 2nd Stage, Appareddy Palya Indiranagar, Banglore-560038 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)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

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

Opposite party No.1 exparte.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a mobile handset of Karbonn Mobile K-595 on 4.10.2014, invoice No.7127 for Rs.1450/- from opposite party No.1. One year warranty was given by the opposite parties for above said mobile handset. Within warranty period i.e after two months from the date of purchase, the above said mobile handset became out of order. Various defects arose in it. Its soft-up key, auto on/off became out of order and it could not be put off without removing the battery. The complainant gave the above handset to opposite party No.2 for repair but they could not repair it satisfactorily. On 29.12.2014 the complainant again handed over the above said mobile to opposite party No.2 who kept it with them for repair and call the complainant to collect the same after one month but when after one month the complainant went to take the same, the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that the said mobile handset has been set right but when the complainant checked the handset, he found same defect as before. Now the opposite party No.2 says that the said handset would be sent to company for repair but when the complainant insisted to repair the mobile handset at their own level, they kept the mobile handset and called the complainant after some days. But after some days when the complainant went to take the mobile handset, the opposite party No.2 returned the mobile handset to complainant saying that the opposite party No.2 is unable to repair it on account of some major manufacturing problem. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of the mobile handset i.e Rs.1450/-. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that as per the information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant has purchased the handset on 4.10.2014 and from that date the handset was working properly and there was no fault in the handset but the complainant in order to harass and pressurize the opposite parties firstly visited the office of opposite party No.3 on 13.5.2014 after the expiry of three months of the warranty period. It is further mentioned that after the preliminary checking the engineer of answering opposite parties told the complainant that he has not used the handset properly and due to which the problem has occurred but the complainant was ever eager to book his handset and forced the opposite party No.3 to change the handset as there was problem in the handset and for the satisfaction of the customer the answering opposite parties swapped the handset i.e the handset was changed with new one without box and even the opposite party No.3 made various calls to complainant to visit and collect the handset as the handset is ready for the delivery but the complainant did not turn back to receive the handset. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 did not appear 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 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and closed 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 and 3 closed by order.

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

7. The complainant purchased the mobile handset from opposite party No.1 for Rs.1450/- vide retail invoice dated 4.10.2014 Ex.C1. According to the complainant, after two months from the date of purchase i.e within warranty period various defects arose in it and he gave the handset to opposite party No.2 i.e service centre for repair but they could not repair it satisfactorily. Further according to the complainant, on 29.12.2014 he again handed over the above said mobile handset to opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 gave it back to him after one month saying that handset has been set right but when he checked the same, he found the same defect as before. Further according to the complainant, opposite party No.2 stated that mobile handset is required to be sent to the company and kept the mobile handset and called the complainant after some days but after some days when he went to take the mobile handset, the opposite party No.2 returned the mobile handset to him saying that the opposite party No.2 is unable to repair it on account of some major manufacturing problem. In support of his version, the complainant has tendered affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB. In their written reply, opposite parties No.2 and 3 have pleaded that opposite party No.3 made various calls to the complainant to visit and collect the handset as handset is ready for delivery but the complainant did not turn back to receive the handset. So according to opposite parties No.2 and 3, the mobile handset has been repaired but the complainant has not come to collect the same. At the time of arguments, complainant was present in person and stated at bar that the defective mobile handset is with him and he showed the mobile at the time of arguments. This fact clearly shows that opposite parties No.2 and 3 have not disclosed the true facts in their written reply and have wrongly stated that handset is ready for delivery but the complainant did not turn back to receive the same. When the mobile handset is with the complainant, the question of complainant not going to the service centre to collect the handset does not arise. So version of the complainant is liable to be accepted.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.2 and 3 are directed to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model after receiving the old handset from complainant or in the alternative to refund its price to him. In case of refund of price, the complainant shall handed over the old mobile handset to opposite parties No.2 and 3. Complainant is further awarded Rs.2000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

04.06.2015 Member Member President