BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C.No. 359/2010 Filed on 9/11/2010

Dated : 30..04..2011

Complainant:

Rajendraprasad, Sreelekshmi, ULRA-80, Ulloor Lane, Jagathy – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

(party in Person)

Opposite parties:

1. Mobily, TC 26/95, Jayabharatham Building, opp. Secretariat, Statue, M.G.Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Karbonn, A UTL – Jaina Venture, Corporate Office L-18, Diamond District, Airport Road, Kodihalli, Bangalore – 5600908.

This O.P having been heard on 06..04..2011, the Forum on 30..04..2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

The brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant had purchased a Mobile phone and a memory card for Rs.4,400/- & for Rs.400/- respectively from the 1^st opposite party. From the very beginning itself the audio recorder was not functioning properly. Five months after the purchase of the Mobile phone, it became defective and the same was handed over to the Service Centre of Karbonn. They returned the phone after 4 days stating that they shall inform the complainant when the 'board' is available from the Company. Later twice the phone was accepted by them and returned the same stating that the board has not come yet. Hence this complaint for redressal of his grievance.

2. Opposite parties remain exparte.

Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts P1 to P5. 3. The points for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

4. Points (i) & (ii): The complainant has produced Ext. P1 which goes to prove that he had purchased one Mobile phone as pleaded in the complaint for Rs.4,400/-. Further, Ext. P2 reveals the acceptance of Rs. 400/- by 1^st opposite party for purchase of one 'Micro-2gh-450'. The complainant has pleaded that, the Company has manufactured the phone using substandard components and that the Company staff are all irresponsible and hence he has prayed for refund of the amount. As per Ext. P3 it could be seen that the complainant had entrusted the phone in dispute with the 1^st opposite party with the complaint of 'SIM not working'. Ext. P3 is dated 4/9/2010. Further on 26/10/10, the complainant had again handed over the phone to the Karbonn Service Centre with the complainant which has been noted by them as 'PCB change'. The date of purchase of the Phone is 3/2/10 and the complaints as per Exts. P3 & P4 have occurred well within 7 months from its purchase. The opposite parties have never appeared before the Forum to challenge the allegation levelled against them nor they have filed their version in this case. The complainant as PW1 has filed his affidavit which stands uncontroverted as he has not been cross examined by the opposite parties.

5. From the exhibits it could be seen that the handset purchased by the complainant has become defective within 7 months of its purchase and the same has been entrusted with the opposite parties for servicing and repairing several times and the same has not been rectified. In the above circumstance we find that if repeated servicing and repairing of the handset fail in resolving the problem encountered by its operator it points to the existence of some serious defect in it if not a manufacturing defect. Hence in this case the complainant could not use the Mobile phone defect free from the very inception. The desire of a new buyer has been disappointed by the performance of the Mobile phone. From the very beginning it has been taken to the opposite parties for repairing. In the above circumstance we find that the complainant is entitled for compensation also for the sufferings he had to undergo.

In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to replace the defective phone in dispute with a defect free one within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the opposite parties shall pay Rs.4,400/- to the complainant. The opposite paties jointly and severally shall also pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and costs of the proceedings. The complainant shall be entitled for interest @ 12% for the entire amount if not paid within one month from the date of receipt of the Order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30^th day of April, 2011.

S.K.SREELA, MEMBER.

G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT

BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.

ad.

C.C.No. 359/2010

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Rajendra Prasad. J

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of bill/invoice No.6236

P2 : " estimate No. 14455 dated 3/2/2010.

P3 : " job card dated 4/9/2010

P4 : " complaint dated 26/10/2010

P5 : " Karbonn Mobile phone warranty card

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT