BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.110 of 2014

Date of Instt. 3.4.2014

Date of Decision :20.11.2014

Brij Arora, aged about 40 years son of Ram Lal R/o H.No.1, New Ghai Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Karbonn Mobiles, 245, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash(EOK), South Delhi, Delhi, through its Managing Director/Chairman.

2. Mobile House, Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner.

3. Harsehaj Communication, Shop No.3, Second Floor, Plot No.323, Street no.6-A, Mobile Market, Central Town, Jalandhar, through its Prop./Manager.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.R.K.Bhalla Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 3.

Opposite party No.2 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of mobile phones with the trade mark as Karbonn and the opposite party No.2 is the dealer and opposite party No.3 is authorized service centre at Jalandhar of the opposite party No.1 for repair of the mobiles. The complainant purchased a Karbon mobile A-27 having No.911304200157323 vide invoice No.3417 dated 24.4.2013 for Rs.8200/-. Immediately after the purchase of the said mobile, the complainant found a defect in the functioning of the said mobile as the said mobile used to automatically restart and the complainant reported the above said complaint to the opposite party No.3 for three times and every time, the same defect remained in the mobile. Every time when the complainant handed over the mobile to the opposite party No.3 for repair, the complainant has to visit number of times to enquire about the above said mobile but the opposite party No.3 had raised number of excuses and moreover, the behavior of the opposite party No.3 who is attending the customer care is very poor and rude. Last time the complainant handed over the above said mobile to the opposite party No.3 on 26.2.2014 and till today the said mobile has not been repaired and when the complainant asked for the replacement of the said mobile with a new one, the concerned official of the opposite party No.3 behaved so rudely with the complainant. There is manufacturing defect in the mobile set of the complainant, since the date of its purchase and due to the said defect, the mobile set of the complainant is not working properly. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.8200/- i.e cost of the mobile or to replace it with new one. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 and 3 appeared and filed their written reply pleading that as per information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant purchased his handset on 24.4.2013 and from that date the handset was working properly and there was no fault in the handset and the complainant in order to harass and pressurize the opposite parties firstly visited the office of opposite party No.3 after nine months and at that time there was only a software problem and that was duly rectified and then the complainant again visited the office of opposite party No.3 on 26.2.2014 after expiry of 10 months of the warranty period and the complainant is having the full knowledge about the said fact that after the expiry of 12 months, the complainant will not be able to replace his handset and due to said reason, the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.3 on 26.2.2014 and at that time the complainant was very eager to book his handset and opposite party No.3 booked the handset vide job sheet No.911 dated 26.2.2014 and the opposite party No.3 has repaired the handset of the complainant and informed the complainant that the handset was repaired but the complainant never turned back to receive his handset rather in order to fulfill his in-genuine and unreasonable demand, the complainant filed the present complaint. It denied other material averments of the complaint.

3. Upon notice, opposite party 2 did not appear inspite of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA along with copies of documents Ex. C1 to C6 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and evidence of opposite parties No.1 and 3 closed by order.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.2 vide retail invoice dated 24.4.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.8200/-. According to the complainant soon after purchase it developed defect and it used it re-start automatically. According to the complainant, he went to opposite party No.3 service centre for repair of the mobile number of times but the defect remained there. Counsel for complainant contended that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant firstly visited the office of opposite party No.3 after nine months and at that time only a software problem was there which was duly rectified and thereafter he visited the office of opposite party No.3 on 26.2.2014 and the complainant was very eager to book his handset and accordingly opposite party No.3 booked the handset vide job sheet No.911 dated 26.2.2014 Ex.C-2. He further contended that the mobile handset of the complainant has been repaired since long but the complainant never turned up to receive his mobile handset. He further contended that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. The complainant has produced only one job sheet dated 26.2.2014 Ex.C-2 wherein problem of re-start is mentioned. It is in the affidavit of Bharpreet Singh, Authorized representative of opposite party No.3 that handset was repaired but the complainant never turned back to receive his hand set. So according to the opposite party No.3 the handset is lying in repaired condition but complainant has not come present to collect the same. During warranty period the liability of the manufacturer is to repair or rectify the defect, if any. The complainant has not led any reliable evidence to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question. He has not examined any expert witness. However, admittedly the complainant visited opposite party No.3 twice for repair of the mobile handset during warranty period. So for this in connivance he is entitled to compensation.

7. In view of above discussion, the complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties No.1 and 3 are directed to handover the mobile handset of the complainant in fully repaired condition and warranty shall stand extended for six months from the date of receipt of mobile handset by the complainant. Complainant is directed to approach opposite party No.3 to receive the mobile handset in fully repaired condition within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, complainant is granted Rs.2000/- in lump sump on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

20.11.2014 Member President