BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.354 of 2015
Date of Instt. 20.08.2015
Date of Decision : 26.09.2016
Manjit Singh aged about 48 years son of Tej Singh R/o WG-50A, Islamganjm Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1.M/s Karbonn Mobiles, 245, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash (EOK), South Delhi, Delhi through its Mg.Director/Chairman.
2.M/s Mobile House, Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar through its Prop./ Partner.
3.Harsehaj Communication, Plot No.172, 2nd Floor, New Vijay Nagar, Opp.Hakam Tilak Raj Kapoor, TV Centre Road, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under The Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Parvinder Singh Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OPs No.1&3.
OP No.2 exparte.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that complainant purchased Karbonn mobile from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 9.8.2014 for a sum of Rs.5000/- with warranty of one year. The complainant submitted that the mobile handset became defective in the month of February 2015. The complainant approached OP No.3 authorized service centre of Karbonn mobile company and handed over the same to OP No.3 vide job sheet dated 19.2.2015. The OP No.3 gave assurance that they would repair the mobile set or would replace the same but the OP No.3 neither repaired the mobile set of the complainant nor handed over the same to the complainant and the mobile set is still lying with OP No.3. The complainant served legal notice dated 22.7.2015 upon the OPs but inspite of that the OPs neither repaired the mobile set of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant nor replaced the same with new one. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs.77,000/- (Rs.5000/- as cost of mobile phone, Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses).
2. Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed written reply pleaded that the complainant purchased the mobile set on9.8.2014 and the mobile set worked properly and the complainant approached OP No.3 for the first time on 19.2.2015 after the expiry of more than 5 months of the warranty period. The OP No.3 issued job sheet and repaired the mobile set of the complainant and gave various calls to the complainant to collect the handset but the complainant did not turn-up to receive the handset.
3. Notice of this complaint was given to the OP No.2 but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such it was proceeded against exparte.
4. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CCW1/A and Ex.CW1/B alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A and closed evidence.
6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it stands fully proved on record that complainant purchased Karbonn mobile from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 9.8.2014 Ex.C2 for a sum of Rs.5000/- with warranty of one year. The complainant submitted that the mobile handset became defective in the month of February 2015. The complainant approached OP No.3 authorized service centre of Karbonn mobile company and handed over the same to OP No.3 vide job sheet dated 19.2.2015 Ex.C1. OP No.3 gave assurance that they would repair the mobile set or would replace the same but the OP No.3 neither repaired the mobile set of the complainant nor handed over the same to the complainant and the mobile set is still lying with OP No.3. The complainant served legal notice dated 22.7.2015 Ex.C3 upon the OPs but inspite of that the OPs neither repaired the mobile set of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant nor replaced the same with new one. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of the OPs No.1 & 3 is that the complainant purchased the mobile set on9.8.2014 and the mobile set worked properly and the complainant approached OP No.3 for the first time on 19.2.2015 after the expiry of more than 5 months of the warranty period. The OP No.3 issued job sheet Ex.C1. Thereafter, the OPs repaired the mobile set of the complainant and gave various calls to the complainant to collect the handset but the complainant did not turn-up to receive the handset, rather, he filed the present complaint. Learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 3 qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the Karbonn mobile set purchased by the complainant from OP No.2 vide invoice Ex.C2 for a sum of Rs.5000/-, became dead in February 2015 and the complainant handed over the mobile set to OP No.3 authorized service centre vide job sheet Ex.C1 on 19.2.2015 with remarks “handset dead”. The OP No.3 failed to repair the mobile set in question nor returned the same to the complainant. The complainant also served legal notice dated 22.7.2015 Ex.C3 upon the OPs through registered post, postal receipts of which are Ex.C4 but OPs No.1 & 3 did not even submit any reply to the legal notice served by complainant nor they returned the mobile to the complainant and the mobile set has been lying with OP No.3 since 19.2.2015 and the complainant was forced to file this complaint. All this fully prove that the mobile set of the complainant is not repairable. The plea of the OP that the mobile set has been repaired by the OP and the complainant was told to collect the same but he did not turn-up, is not tenable because the OP could not produce any evidence that they had ever communicated to the complainant to collect the mobile handset. Even the OPs No.1 & 3 failed to submit any reply to the legal notice served by the complainant upon the OPs through registered post which is presumed to have been received by the OPs. Nor the OPs No.1 & 3 produced the mobile set in the Forum. So, all this fully proved that the mobile set of the complainant is not repairable. As such, OPs No.1 & 3 are liable either to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund the price of the mobile.
10. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed with cost against OPs No.1 & 3 and the OPs No.1 & 3 are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model and in case the said mobile set of same make and model is not available then to refund the price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.5000/- to the complainant. The OPs No.1 & 3 are also directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- alongwith cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.2000/-. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost, under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
26.09.2016 Member President
