BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.432 of 2014

Date of Instt. 05.12.2014

Date of Decision :12.05.2015

Kashmiri Lal son of Joginder Singh R/o VPO Nurpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Mobile House, H.O.Chadha House Pvt Ltd, Regd Officer:- Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Signatory.

2. Karbonn Service Centre, Shop No.5, GS Bajwa Complex, Nakodar Road, Opposite Friends Bakery, Jalandhar through its authorized person.

3. Karbonn Mobiles #39/13, Off 7th Main, Hal 2nd Stage, Appareddy Palya, Indiranagar, Banglore-560038 through its Directory.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.GL Gagneja Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhar Adv., counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.

Opposite party No.1 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 complainant had purchased one mobile phone model Karbonn Mobile S-5, 911309352358413 from opposite party No.1 against cash payment of Rs.10,000/- vide invoice No.26333 dated 26.8.2013. After some days the said mobile phone did not work properly and then the complainant went to the shop of opposite party No.1 and made the complaint regarding the defect of the said mobile phone. But opposite party No.1 advised the complainant to approach to the opposite party No.2 for the removal/repair of such defect. Then the complainant immediately approached to the opposite party No.2 on the same day and made complaint regarding the defect of the said mobile phone, the complainant handed over the said mobile phone to the opposite party No.2 for its repair on 20.9.2013. The opposite party No.2 had taken the said mobile phone from the complainant and issued job sheet dated 20.9.2013 and stated that the said mobile phone would be returned to the complainant after its repair on the next day. On next day i.e on 21.9.2013 the complainant collected his above said mobile phone from opposite party No.2 and at the time of handing over the said mobile phone the opposite party No.2 assured that he has removed the defect and now the said mobile phone is OK and will work properly. As on the assurance of the opposite party No.2 the complainant took the mobile phone and thereafter the complainant again noted that the said phone was again not working properly and then the complainant again approached to the opposite party no.2 and requested that the mobile phone in question is again not working properly, then opposite party No.2 again took the said mobile phone from the complainant and had issued the second job sheet dated 24.9.2013 and assured that the mobile phone shall be returned on the next day after removing the defect. Thereafter the complainant approached number of times to the opposite party No.2 to get his mobile back, but all the time the opposite party No.2 put off the matter on one pretext to the other, by lame excuses. Then the complainant approached to the opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.1 has stated that he has got no concern in this regard and advised to approach the opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 only and the opposite party No.1 also did not take any care of the complainant in this regard. Then the complainant again approached to the opposite party No.2 and asked for his above said mobile but instead of paying any heed on the request of the complainant, the opposite party No.2 misbehaved with the complainant and flatly stated that he will not repair/replace his mobile phone and openly threatened the complainant by saying that to do what he can, and further used defamatory language upon the complainant, which lowered the reputation of the complainant for which the complainant also reserve his right to take separate legal action against opposite party No.2 which is punishable under section 500 of IPC. The said mobile phone is still in the custody of opposite party No.2. Thereafter the complainant served a legal notice to the opposite parties through his counsel through registered post, and the legal notice was very much served upon the opposite parties, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the legal notice of the complainant and failed to return the mobile phone of the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or to refund its price to him. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that as per the information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant has purchased the handset on 26.8.2013 and from that date the handset was working properly and there was no fault in the handset. The complainant visited the opposite party No.2 on 20.9.2013 and collected the handset on 21.9.2013 after removing the defects from the handset and again on 24.9.2013, the complainant again visited the office of opposite party No.2 and deposited his handset and then the opposite party No.2 sent the handset to opposite party No.3 as the handset was not in a position to repair and the opposite party No.3 after completing the necessary formalities sent back the new handset to opposite party No.2 for delivering the same to the complainant but the opposite party No.2 failed to do the same and opposite party No.2 is responsible for the same. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Upon notice opposite party No.1 did not appear 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 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.2 and 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and evidence of opposite parties No.2 and 3 was closed by order.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties No.2 and 3.

7. The complainant purchased the handset in question for Rs.10,000/- vide retail invoice Ex.C1 dated 26.8.2013 from opposite party No.1. According to complainant after few days from the purchase of the mobile handset, it developed defects and did not work properly and on the directions of opposite party No.1 he gave the handset to opposite party No.2 who issued job sheet dated 20.9.2013. Further according to the complainant on 21.9.2013 complainant collected his above said handset from opposite party No.2 but again it was not working properly and as such he again deposited the mobile handset with opposite party No.2 vide job sheet dated 24.9.2013. According to the complainant till date the opposite party No.2 has not returned the mobile handset to him and same is still in the custody of opposite party No.2. In its written reply opposite parties No.2 and 3 have pleaded that opposite party No.2 sent the handset to opposite party No.3 as the handset was not in a position to repair and the opposite party No.3 after completing the necessary formalities sent back the new handset to opposite party No.2 for delivering the same to the complainant but the opposite party No.2 failed to do the same and it is responsible for it. If opposite party No.2 has not returned the mobile handset to the complainant then it is matter between opposite parties No.2 and 3. So far as the complainant is concerned, in the circumstances of the case, he is entitled to new mobile handset or in the alternative refund of its price.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted against opposite parties No.2 and 3 and they are directed either to give the new mobile handset of the same make and model to the complainant or to refund its price i.e Rs.10,000/- to him within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- 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

12.05.2015 Member Member President