Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/656

Rishi Khanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s karbonn Mobiles Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswant Singh Adv.

15 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 656 of 04.11.2015

Date of Decision            :   15.06.2016

 

Rishi Khanna, aged 36 years s/o Sh.Jagmohan, r/o H.No.B-IX-705, Gulchaman Gali, Opp. Sunehri Gurudwara, Chauri Sarak, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.M/s Karbon Mobiles Ltd., 39/13, 7^th Main Hall, Second Stage, Appreddy Palya, Indira Nagar, Bangalore-560038.

2.M/s Karbon Mobiles Ltd.,D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, Near DD Motors, Delhi-110020.

3.M/s Gupta Music Café, Shop No.1, Hotel Le Classic Tower, Mata Rani Road, Ludhiana.

4.H.C.Services (Karbon Mobile Service Centre), S.C.O.14, Ist Floor, Gian Singh Rarewala Market, Backside Passport Office, Ludhiana, Punjab-141010.

 

 

…Opposite party

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS. BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        In Person             

For OP1, OP2 and OP4 :         Ex-parte.

For OP3                         :        Sh.D.K.Sareen, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant Sh.Rishi Khanna filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) against Ops by claiming that he purchased one mobile phone set of Karbon S320/Karbon High, 3G GSM make for an amount of Rs.5880/- from OP3 vide invoice No.1790 dated 22.5.2015 on assurance that mobile is manufactured by reputed company and complainant will not suffer any inconvenience/problem. One year guarantee from the date of purchase was also to be provided by OP1 and OP2 as per assurance of OP3. In case of any problem or defect, the manufactured company as per guarantee to replace the defective mobile set. That warranty was also with respect to the accessories of the mobile set including charger, battery, headphone etc. The purchased mobile set was having number of manufacturing defects and that is why the same started giving trouble one after other within 1 month of its purchase. Complainant, being an Advocate by profession, has to use the mobile set as per need for contacting the clients through mails and other high tech techniques. After facing problem, the complainant immediately contacted OP4, the service centre on 29.7.2015 and latter issued hand written rough receipt on the same day. However, OP4 failed to get the mobile set repaired. Complainant frequently visited OP4 and latter issued job sheet dated 11.8.2015. Complainant visited OP4 repeatedly, but to no effect and that is why the complainant contacted OP1 and OP2 on provided toll free No.1860-200-4660. Complainant was shocked to hear from the customer care representative that mobile set in question has already been handed over to him(complainant). This unbelievable information was provided to the complainant and that is why he visited OP4, who disclosed that as per requirement, the complaint was to be resolved within 30 days from the date of issuing of job card and as such, for fulfilling the norms laid down by OP1 and OP2, they have updated the status. Feeling aggrieved against this conduct of OP4, complainant again contacted OP4, who issued the new job sheet dated 8.9.2015 to the complainant just for saving their skin. Even then OP4 failed to repair or replace the mobile set of the complainant. Complainant again enquired from the customer care toll free number referred above and got the information to the effect that he(complainant) can collect the new hand set from the service centre. However, when the complainant again approached OP3 and OP4, then they expressed their inability to do so. Rather, complainant was disclosed that part found faulty is not available with them. OP3 and OP4 suggested the complainant not to waste time by visiting their office time and again. Complainant was advised to purchase new hand set of some other international company. Op4 flatly refused to replace the hand set despite several visits and oral requests made by the complainant through telephone and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, this complaint filed for directing OPs to return the paid price amount of Rs.5880/- with interest @18% p.a. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.3 lac along with litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- more claimed.

2.                 OP2 refused to accept the service of summon and that was treated as due service. OP4 served through Sh.Jasbir Singh Grewal, CO, but none appeared for him and that is why, both these OPs were proceeded against ex-parte. Notice was sent to OP1 through registered post on 20.11.2015, but neither AD nor registered cover received back served or unserved and as such after drawing presumption of due service after lapse of period of 30 days and after finding that none appeared for OP1, even OP1 was proceeded against ex-parte.

3.                Op3 filed written statement by claiming interalia as if complaint against him(OP3) is not maintainable; complainant has no cause of action; complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present complaint; complainant is not a consumer within meaning of Consumer Protection Act; complaint is vague, indefinite and lacks in material particulars. Complainant after going through the contents of bill purchased the mobile set as per his own wish, choice and desire. The conditions postulate that guarantee/warrantee to be provided by the service centre. Only obligation on the part of OP3 as dealer was to show the different models and brands of the mobile set to the complainant. Sole discretion in selection of the  mobile  set  was of   complainant. There was no inducement made by the OP3 and nor any  allurement was given by OP3. Customer is not obliged to yield to any inducement   or compulsion or allurement and as such, question of exercising of such inducement or allurement and compulsion on the part of OP3 does not arise. Op3 is not liable for any guarantee/warrantee. Complainant never approached OP3 regarding the alleged defects. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the mobile set in question vide invoice No.1790, but it is denied that the sold mobile set was having manufacturing defects or that the same started giving trouble within 1 month from its purchase. Admittedly, the mobile has become a backbone for everybody. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that no such loss has been suffered by the complainant in his profession due to any act and conduct of OP3. Besides, it is claimed that imaginary and speculative assertions put forth in the complaint.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA3 of Sh.Parmod Kumar, Proprietor of OP3 and then closed the evidence.

6.                Written arguments not submitted by the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

7.                From the pleadings of the parties and submitted affidavits and contents of invoice Ex.C1, it is proved that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question for consideration of Rs.5880/- from OP3 on 22.5.2015. On invoice/bill Ex.C1 itself it is endorsed that guaranty/warranty will be valid in service centre and as such, dealer remained under no obligation in             matter of terms and conditions of guaranty/warranty. So, liability of OP3 to replace the mobile set does not remain because liability of replacement or to remove the defects is of the service centre i.e. Op4.

8.                Duration of warranty limited to 12 months of the set from the date of original purchase as per endorsement in the warranty card Ex.C2. This warranty to remain in force for 6 six months in respect of the accessories i.e. batteries, charger, headsets, cables etc is a fact borne from perusal of condition no.2 of Ex.C2, warranty card. In view of this warranty was to remain effective qua the mobile set till 22.5.2016, but of accessories i.e battery, chargers etc till 22.11.2015.

9.                Ex.C3 is the receipt produced to show that mobile set in question was deposited with OP4 service centre on 11.8.2015 because of display problem. Ex.C4 also is the other job sheet dated 8.9.2015 which shows as if the mobile set in question developed the problem in touch pad and that is why the same was taken to the service centre i.e. Op4. These problems remained unsolved and that is why the complainant served legal notice dated 1.10.2015 Ex.C5 through postal receipts Ex.C6 to Ex.C9 on OPs. Ex.C10 is the receipt dated 29.7.2015 issued by OP4 showing as if problem of lining display heating developed and that is why the mobile set was taken to OP4. As defects in the mobile set not removed despite existence of warranty clause within the warranty/guaranty period and as such, certainly the complainant has suffered mental tension and pain. The mobile set as per claim of the complainant has not been returned to him by OP4 and as such, certainly the complainant is entitled for refund of the price amount i.e. of Rs.5880/-. Even he is entitled for compensation for the mental suffering and tension at the hands of OPs for non removal of defects, despite repeated visits made by him(the complainant) to OP4. Complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2500/- for mental harassment. Complainant is an Advocate by profession and as such, he definitely would have not bear anything in respect of the fee of counsel and as such, amount of Rs.1500/- allowed as litigation expenses. Liability to remain of OP1, OP2 and OP4, being manufacturer and service centre. However, complaint against OP3 is not maintainable because the terms and conditions of guarantee/warranty itself provide that replacement to be                                 done by the manufacturer and service to be provided by the service centre and not by the dealer.

10.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed against Op1, OP2 and OP4 only in terms that these OPs will refund the price amount of mobile set namely 5880/- to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.2500/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1500/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP1, OP2 and OP4. These payments of costs and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, complaint against OP3 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. 

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                                                            

                      (Babita)                                     (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:15.06.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.