BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.399 of 2014

Date of Instt. 13.11.2014

Date of Decision :06.4.2015

Pardeep Kumar aged about 45 years son of Shiv Kumar R/o WT-191, Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Karbonn Mobiles, through its Managing Director, 39/13, Office 7th Main, IInd Stage, Indra Nagar, Banglore-560038.

2. Kapoor Telecom (Kapur Tent), Basti Sheikh, (Model House Road), Jalandhar through its Prop./Authorized Signatory.

3. Harsehaj Communication, Authorized Service Centre Karbonn, Mahavir Marg, Near Kataria Hospital, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Deepak Sidana Adv., counsel for complainant.

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

Sh.Parmod Kashyap Adv., counsel for OP No.2.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased one mobile phone make Karbonn A-52 bearing IMEI No.911364600465460 & 911364600465478 from opposite party No.2 vide invoice No.176 dated 10.4.2014 for a sum of Rs.3500/- which is manufactured by the opposite party No.1, having warranty/guarantee of one year and there was inherent defect in the above said mobile and on 11.7.2014 the complainant approached opposite party No.3 being the registered service centre of the Karbonn company i.e opposite party No.3 for removing the inherent defect in the mobile set as the mobile set was under the statutory warranty period. Opposite party No.3 retained the mobile set and asked the complainant to come after 20 days. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3 after 20 days but the opposite party No.3 instead of handing over the mobile set after repair, handed over service job sheet to the complainant with the remarks :-Dim display/VOC23 on 5.8.2014 and the complainant was asked to come after five days. The complainant approached and contacted the opposite party No.3 but it showed the said mobile set and on checking it was found by the complainant that the display was still having inherent defect and opposite party No.3 retained the mobile set of the complainant and asked him to come after two days to receive the mobile back after the correction of defect in all respects and accordingly the complainant again visited the opposite party No.3 but it did not return the mobile set of the complainant and kept on lingering the matter and retaining the mobile handset of the complainant. Again on 13.8.2014 the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 and requested them to hand over the mobile set, but opposite party No.3 instead of handing over the mobile set, pushed the complainant out of premises and abused him in a filthy language. Thereafter, complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and narrated the whole story to the management of the opposite party No.2 but they did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant through his counsel, sent a legal notice dated 22.8.2014 through registered post dated 22.8.2014 to the opposite parties with the request to provide the mobile set after repair or pay the price of the set to the complainant and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation/damages for deficiency of service, but all in vein. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile handset alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply, opposite parties No.1 and 3, inter-alia, pleaded that as per the information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant has purchased the handset on 10.4.2014 and from that date the handset was working properly and there was no fault in the handset but the complainant in order to harass and pressurize the opposite parties firstly visited the office of opposite party No.3 on 5.8.2014 after the expiry of four months of the warranty period and the complainant was very eager to book his handset and requested the opposite party no.3 to change the handset and opposite party No.3 told the complainant that they have to get the approval from the opposite party No.1 and for that purpose complainant has to wait for 15-20 days and on the request of the complainant the opposite party No.3 mailed opposite party No.1 for the swap of the handset, meaning thereby the handset will be changed with the another handset without box and the opposite party No.3 received the handset from the opposite party No.1 after a month, as there is procedure to get the permission and then the opposite party No.3 called the complainant to receive the handset but the complainant threatened to opposite parties that he will file the complaint before the Forum. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In its separate written reply, opposite party No.2 admitted that complainant purchased the handset in question vide bill dated 10.4.2014 but opposite party No.2 is not responsible for the service of the mobile handset and company is responsible for the same.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2/1 and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 3 tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and evidence of the opposite parties No.1 and 3 closed by order.

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

7. It is not disputed that complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.2 vide cash memo dated 10.4.2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.3500/-. According to complainant, soon after purchase the mobile handset developed defect and it was given to the opposite party No.3 vide service job sheet Ex.C2 on 5.8.2014 but till date the opposite party No.3 has failed to rectify the defect or to refund its price. In their written reply, opposite parties No.1 and 3 have pleaded that on the request of the complainant the opposite party No.3 mailed opposite party No.1 for the swap of the handset, meaning thereby the handset will be changed with the another handset without box. It is further in their written reply that opposite party No.3 received the handset from the opposite party No.1 after a month, as there is procedure to get the permission and then the opposite party No.3 called the complainant to receive the handset but he threatened to file the complaint before this forum. The fact that opposite party No.1 was ready to give swap or new handset to the complainant clearly proves that the old handset purchased by the complainant was having some manufacturing defect and was beyond repair.

8. So in the above circumstances, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.1 and 3 are directed to give new mobile handset of the same make and model to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order in lieu of old one. The complainant is also awarded Rs.1500/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

06.04.2015 Member Member President