Haryana

Jind

CC/111/2015

Jai Bhagwan Deswal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Delhi Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Rajesh Gill

21 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, JIND. 
                                                Complaint Case No : 111of 2015
                                                Date of Institution   :  28.8.2015
                                                Date of Decision      : 21.10.2016

Jai Bhagwan Deswal s/o Sh. Ram Mehar r/o vill. Hadwa Teh. Safidon, District Jind. 
                                                                              ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
M/s Delhi Mobile,Opp. Bus Stand, Gohana Road, Jind (Haryana) through its Proprietor.
Jaina Marketing & Associate,(Karbonn Mobile) Okhla Industrial area, Phase-I, D.170, near DD Motors, New Delhi-110020 through its M.D./Chairman.

                                                                 …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of the
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM: SH.A.K. SARDANA PRESIDENT.
      SMT. BIMLA SHEOKAND, MEMBER.
              SH. M.K. KHURANA, MEMBER.    

Present:  Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gill, Adv. counsel for complainant.
          OPs ex-parte. 
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts of the  present complaint are that  the complainant  purchased  one Karbonn Mobile Model All+ bearing IMEI No.911241602253380 and 911241602760389 in a sum of Rs.6,850/-  from OP No.1 vide bill No.5479 dated 16.2.2014 which was having one year warranty against any defect in the mobile set.  The OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the above said mobile set.  After some days of its purchase, the mobile set started creating hanging problem, as such complainant visited the shop of OP No.1 and requested to remove the defect of the mobile set. As per instructions of OP No.1, the complainant took his mobile set to Karbonn Service Centre i.e. Saini Mobile Repair, Safidon Road, near Kundan Cinema, Jind for removing the defect but the defect of the mobile could not be rectified. Thereafter, complainant took his mobile again & again to the service centre  of OP company on 11.10.2014, 27.10.2014 & 11.11.2014  vide job sheets as  Annexures C-5 to  C-7 respectively but the defect could not be removed by the service centre and mobile is still lying with the service centre of OP No.2 in defective condition rather the service mechanic who attended the complaint  told  the complainant that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile set and problem can be solved only with its replacement. At last, the complainant served a legal notice dated 19.12.2014 through his counsel Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gill upon the OPs but all in vain. As such, the complainant has submitted that the OPs are  deficient in providing proper services to him and  prayed that the complaint be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the price of mobile i.e. Rs.6,850/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.,  and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain & agony  to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of OPs despite service through registered post. As such, OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide order  dated 22.8.2016 passed by the Forum. 
3.    To prove his contention, counsel for  complainant tendered  affidavit of complainant as Annexure C-X along with documents as  Annexures C-1 to C-7  and closed the  evidence.
4.    We have heard the Ld. Counsel of complainant and perused the record placed on file. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased a mobile set of  Karbonn on 16.2.2014 from OP No.1 & one year warranty was given to him for the said mobile set. The main grievance of the complainant is that after some time of purchase, said mobile set started creating hanging problem. The complainant contacted  service centre of the OP company for repair and rectification of the defects in the set and the same was retained by  service centre of OP No.2. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the said mobile was neither repaired nor returned back to the complainant despite various visits and the same is still lying in the custody of service centre of OP No.2 which is admittedly a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. He further argued that OPs be directed to  refund  the cost of mobile set alongwith compensation as prayed for in the complaint. Besides it,  to strengthen his case, the Ld. Counsel of the complainant 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 & 2007 (1) CLT page 614 passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor and others 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.”  Counsel for complainant further convinced that the facts of the present complaint are similar to the above mentioned case law as the mobile set in question could not be repaired by service centre  inspite of retaining the same meaning thereby the same is not repairable. 
5.    After hearing the Ld. Counsel of  complainant and going through the record, it is  crystal clear from the document Annexure C-4 that mobile set in question of OP company was purchased by complainant from OP No.1 on 16.2.2014. It is also not in dispute that the said mobile set was having a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase. Further, it is also not in dispute that the mobile set in question became defective during the warranty period and deposited with service centre of OP company for rectification of defects  as clear from documents  Annexures C-5 to C-7 i.e. job sheets dated 11.10.2014, 27.10.2014&11.11.2014. Further, OPs  did not bother to appear and contest the present complaint despite service and in these circumstances we have no option  except to believe the version of the complainant that service centre of OP company did not returned back the mobile set in question till date to the complainant after rectifying the defects. As such, we hold that the OPs have neither rectified the defective mobile in question despite warranty  nor returned back the same to the complainant  till date which is admittedly a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, we accept the present 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 i.e. Rs.6,850/- to the complainant  
       alongwith simple interest @9% per annum from the date of 
       institution of complaint to till its realization.
(ii)   to pay a sum of  Rs.3,000/- as compensation on account of 
           harassment, mental pain & agony etc.
             Let 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:

                                   PRESIDENT                                                                                         District Consumer Disputes
                                  Redressal Forum, Jind. 

                                    Member

                                    Member