Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/210/2015

Parminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Karbonn Mobiles Corporate Office - Opp.Party(s)

Aman Singla

20 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/210/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	06/04/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	20/08/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Parminder Singh son of Sh.Harbans Singh, R/o House No.122, Shivalik Vihar-II, Near Khuda Ali Sher, Nayagaon (Punjab).

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   M/s Karbonn Mobiles, Corporate Office: D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi – 110020, through its Authorized Representative.

 

     Also at:-

 

No.39/13, Off 7^th Main, Hal 2^nd Stage, Appareddy Palya, Indiranagar, Bangalore – 560038, through its authorized representative.

 

2.   M/s A.K.S. Telecom, Karbonn Mobile Service Centre, M/s Karbonn Mobiles, SCO 1104-1105, Cabin No.10, Top Floor, Sector 22, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Representative.

 

3.   M/s Sera Stores, SCO 1027, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh – 160022, through its Authorized Representative. 

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Aman Singla,Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. N.S. Sidhu, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Ex-parte.
For OP No.3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased one ‘Karbonn S2 Plus’ mobile handset from Opposite Party No.3 on 21.8.2014 for Rs.6300/- vide bill Annexure C-1. The aforesaid mobile handset stopped working on 30.12.2014 and was handed over to Opposite Party No.2 for necessary repairs vide job sheet Annexure C-2. Thereafter, the Complainant visited the Opposite Party No.2 umpteen number of times, but it failed to repair the handset. Eventually, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party No.2 that if the Company is unable to repair the handset, then replace it with a new one as the handset is still under warranty, but to no avail. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, since nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 29.06.2015.  

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that as per information received from the Service Centre, when the Complainant came to the Service Centre for getting repairs of his mobile handset, it was timely repaired, but he never approached Opposite Party for replacement of disputed mobile handset. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party No.1 has been controverted.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant and perused the record with utmost care and circumspection, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Complainant as well as Opposite Party No.1.

 

7.     The case of the Complainant is that he purchased one Karbonn S2 Plus mobile handset from Opposite Party No.3 on 21.8.2014 for Rs.6300/- vide bill Annexure C-1. As per Annexure C-2 the job sheet the mobile handset in question got defective on 30.12.2014 i.e. just within four months of its usage and was accordingly submitted to the Opposite Party No.2 (Authorized Service Centre of the Opposite Party No.1) for necessary repairs. As per the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.2 neither repaired the mobile handset in question and nor made any effort to get it replaced as it got defective within the warranty period.

 

8.     The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 (the Manufacturer) is that when the mobile handset in question was submitted to its Service Centre for repairs, it was timely repaired, but the Complainant never approached it for the replacement of the mobile handset.

 

9.     A careful perusal of the file shows that the mobile handset in question was used only for four months and the defect, as per Annexure C-2 the job sheet dated 30.12.2014, could not be rectified by the Opposite Party No.2 (Authorized Service Centre of Opposite Party No.1). We feel that it is only Opposite Party No.2, who could explain whether the proper and timely services were provided to the Complainant or not and further whether request of replacement was made by the Complainant or not. But instead of clarifying all these material facts, it preferred to proceed against ex-parte. Since Opposite Party No.3 is only the Retailer and has nothing to do with the repair/ replacement of the mobile handset in question, therefore, the Complaint stands dismissed qua Opposite Party No. 3. In these set of circumstances, the act of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in non-repairing the mobile handset in question and further non-replacing the same inspite of requests of the Complainant that too within the warranty period points out towards deficiency in service and their indulgence in unfair trade practice, which certainly has caused immense physical and mental harassment to the Complainant. 

 

10.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are directed to:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.6,300/- to the Complainant being the invoice price of the Karbonn S2 Plus mobile handset. 

 

[b]  To pay Rs.4,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]  To pay Rs.4,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

11.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c] above.  

 

12.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

20^th August, 2015                             

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”