BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No. 196 of 2014

Date of Instt. 16.6.2014

Date of Decision :2.12.2014

Pawan Jaggi, aged about 39 years son of Siri Ram Jaggi R/o House No.109, Sodal 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. M/s Mobile House, Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar, through its Prop./Partner.

3. Harsehaj Communication(Earlier Address) Shop No.3, second Floor, Plot No.323, Street No.6-A, Mobile Market, Central Town, Jalandhar, at present/new address: 172, New Vijay Nagar, 2nd Floor, Doordarshan Kendar Road, Near Roto Autos, Jalandhar, through its Prop./Partner.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Parvinder Singh Adv., counsel for complainant.

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

Opposite party No.2 exparte.

Order

Ms.Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a Karbonn Mobile A25 having IMEI No.911308402232875 vide invoice No.35084 dated 10.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.6250/- from the opposite party No.2 on cash payment. At that time the opposite party gave one year replacement guarantee. After some time in the month of April 2014, the complainant found a defect in the functioning of the said mobile as the touch of the mobile was not working and further battery back-up of the said mobile was very low. The complainant brought this defect into the knowledge of the opposite party No.2 and he advised to give the mobile to the authorized service centre i.e opposite party No.3. The complainant visited the authorized service centre and told them about the above said defects in the mobile set. At the time of handing over the said mobile to the opposite party No.3 for repair, the opposite party No.3 has given job sheet No.15/K5970 dated 5.4.2014 and after that the complainant visited number of times to enquire about the above said mobile but the opposite party No.3 had raised number of lame excuses and moreover the behaviour of the opposite party No.3 is very rude and the incharge of the service centre was dilly-delaying the matter and was not handing over the mobile to the complainant nor the opposite parties had agreed to replace the defective mobile with new one. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of the mobile i.e Rs.6250/- or to replace the mobile with new one. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 3 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that as per the information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant purchased his handset on 10.10.2013 and from that date the handset was working properly and there was no fault in the handset and there was no defect 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 5.4.2014 after the expiry of six months of 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 get replacement of the handset and due to said reason, the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.3 on 5.4.2014 and booked his handset vide job sheet No.15K 5970 dated 5.4.2014 and at the time of receiving the handset the engineer told the complainant that the said problem has occurred due to the rough handling of the said mobile and due to the overcharging of the said mobile and if these things happen then the handset was not covered under the terms of warranty, but the complainant was precious customer of opposite parties, due to which the opposite party no.3 booked the handset of the complainant under warranty and repaired the handset of the complainant and the opposite parties made various calls to the complainant to receive the handset but the complainant never turned back to receive the handset, rather in order to fulfill his in-genuine and unreasonable demand, the complainant filed the present complaint. They denied other material averments of the complaint.

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

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with copies of documents Ex. C1 and Ex.C6 and closed his evidence.

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

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 3.

7. It is not disputed that complainant purchased the mobile handset in question vide retail invoice dated 10.10.2013 Ex.C1. According to the complainant in April 2014, the mobile handset developed defect and he gave the handset to opposite party No.3 for repair vide job sheet dated 5.4.2014 Ex.C2 but the opposite party No.3 has neither rectified the defect nor returned the mobile handset and further opposite parties have also not agreed to replace the defective mobile with new one. On the other hand, according to opposite parties No.1 and 3, the handset has been repaired and opposite parties made various calls to the complainant to receive the handset but he never turned-up to receive the handset and on the other hand to fulfill his unreasonable demand has filed the present complaint. We have carefully considered the version of both the parties. According to opposite parties No.1 & 3 the handset is lying in repaired condition but the complainant has not come to collect the same. During warranty the liability of the manufacturer is to repair the handset free of cost unless there is any manufacturing defect in it. There is no reliable evidence on record to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question. The mobile handset in question was purchased on 10.10.2013 and was given to opposite party No.3 for repair on 5.4.2014 i.e after about 6 months. In case, there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset then it would not have worked properly for 6 months. However the complainant faced in connivance due to defect in the mobile handset during warranty period. On the job sheet Ex.C-2 problems of touch not working and battery back-up low are mentioned. So complainant is entitled to compensation and litigation expenses on this score.

8. In view of above discussion, the complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties No.1 and 3 are directed to handover the mobile handset in fully repaired condition free of any charges to the complainant. The complainant is directed to approach the opposite party No.3 to receive the mobile handset in repaired condition. However, the opposite party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.2000/- in lump sump to the complainant on account of litigation expenses and compensation. 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

2.12.2014 Member President