DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. - 828/2013
Date of Institution - 17/09/2013
Order Reserved on 16/08/2016
Date of Order - 22/08/2016
In matter of
Mr.Lalit Kumar, adult
S/o- Sh Chunni Lal
R/o-N-34, Gali No. 14,
Brahmpuri, Delhi 110053………………………………....………..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-M/s Mobile World
Shop- A-117, Shakarpur Main Market
Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092
2-M/s Karbonn
Office - D- 170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I,
New Delhi 110020
3-Janak infotech Service Centre
C-Block Market,
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053 ………………………………………………… Respondents
Complainant’s Advocate-Puneet Tandon
Opponents Advocate-Atul Kamboj
Quorum - Sh Sukhdev SingH- President
Dr P N Tiwari - Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur- Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member
Brief Facts of the case
Complainant purchased a Karbonn Titanium S5 model vide MIMEI 911309350584796 and SIMEI no. 911309359584804 for a sum of Rs 12,000/- on 07/06/2013 invoice no 438. The said mobile was having warranty of one year from 07/06/2013 to 06/06/2014.
The said mobile developed problem like dim display and voice call problem after about 45 days and was taken to OP 3 in Aug. 2012 as per complaint para 5. OP assured that after 21 days, the mobile would be returned to complainant.
When complainant did not get the satisfactory services from OP3, filed this complaint as his cause of action aroused on 01/08/2012 and claimed damages of a sum of RS 25,000/- as per his complaint para 11. He also claimed refund of his mobile cost with litigation fee Rs 10,000/-
After scrutiny of complaint, notices were served. OPs put up their appearance and submitted their written statement and evidences. OPs denied all the allegations put in the complainant. OP submitted that the complaint was devoid of merit and was had mentioned all wrong dates. It was stated that complainant used the said mobile without any problem and had no manufacturing defect. The said mobile had some problem, for which OP3 rectified its problem and was handed over in working condition to complainant. Complainant availed one service from OP3 though mobile had one year warranty. Complainant filed his complaint for wasting the court time.
Rejoinder and evidences were submitted on affidavit which was on record. Arguments were heard and order reserved.
On perusal of facts and evidences of this case, we have observed that complaint had been poorly drafted and had mentioned wrong dated at many places. Also, the said mobile was under one year warranty and complainant had availed one service from OP3 without any deficiency in its service. He would have availed the remaining warranty period also if his mobile required so. He filed this complaint just after availing one service where as the said mobile was with complainant. Had it not been returned to complainant or had paid amount for availing OP3 services or had faced physical harassment, he could have availed his right to recover the damages. Though as per OP2, the said mobile had no manufacturing defect.
We came to the conclusion that, though, this complaint has no merit and deserve to be dismissed. But after considering all the merits and principle of natural justice, we pass the following order—
1-Complainant can avail the remaining warranty period, if his mobile develop any problem in its working from the date of receiving this order.
2-If no services are availed by the complainant under the remaining warranty period, the complaint would stand dismissed without any cost.
The order copy be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.
Mrs –Harpreet Kaur- Member (Dr) P N Tiwari – Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh - President
