THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 559 of 14
Date of Institution : 22.10.2014
Date of Decision : 19.05.2015
Sh. Sarwan Singh S/o S. Dalip Singh, H.No. 1919/279, Ram Nagar Colony, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
M/s. Karbonn through its Director, Corporate Office D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi 110020
Karbonn Service Centre through its office Incharge, Crystal Chowk, Amritsar
Perfect Times through its Prop./Partner/Principal Officer O/s Gill Market, Hall Bazar, Amritsar
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh.Sumit Sharma,Advocate
For the opposite parties No.1 & 2 : Sh. Sanjeet Singh,Advocate
For opposite party No.3 : Ex-parte
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
-2-
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Sh. Sarwan Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased Karbonn A34 HD 9112602009496078 from opposite party No.3 on payment of Rs. 7500/- vide bill No. 2450 dated 7.2.2014. According to the complainant after the use of the Tablet set, fault in touch panel occurred for which the complainant approached opposite party No.2 being authorized service centre of Karbonn. Opposite party No.2 received the mobile set against job sheet No. 23418 dated 7.8.2014 on the assurance to remove the defect within day or so. But despite repeated requiests/visits of the complainant, opposite party No.2 could not remove the fault. On 25.9.2014 complainant approached opposite parties No.2 & 3 , who told that there is manufacturing defect in the set . The Tablet set is lying with opposite party No.2 and they neither removed the defect nor changed the defective product due to which complainant suffered harassment in the hands of the opposite parties. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties either to exchange the defective mobile set with new one or to return the price of the set i.e. Rs. 7500/- alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 10000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that every customer get one year limited warranty period subject to terms and conditions contained in the warranty card and the warranty on the mobile set is not absolute but limited to terms and conditions. This limited warranty period does not cover normal wear and tear including without limitation, physical damages, wear and tear of camera lenses, batteries and display, transport cost, defects caused by rough handling , bending, compressing or dropping, water locked etc. It was submitted that Lovepreet Singh approached opposite party No.2 service centre on 7.8.2014 after six months from the date of purchase of the said set in question with complaint of touch panel break/faulty problem. Before issue the job sheet to Mr. Lovepreet Singh, opposite party No.2 stated to him that the touch panel screen is physically damaged due to mis-handling and the same is not covered under the warranty period and also told the cost of the same i.e. Rs. 1750/-. The same was marked in the job sheet as Warranty status as “UWV” (Under Warranty Void). It was submitted that Lovepreet Singh approached the service centre after 15 days and told the oppostie party No.2 to replace the touch panel without charging any amount, then again opposite party No.2 stated the detailed facts to Mr. Lovepreet Singh and he gave his assurance to replace the touch panel first , then he will pay the cost accordingly. Ultimately Lovepreet Singh gave his oral consent to opposite party No.2 after two months and on his consent the set was sent to opposite party No.1 for replacement of touch panel and issued him a separate job sheet. The set was received from opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 called Mr. Lovepreet singh to collect his Tab. But he demanded the Tab without payment of any charges and flatly refused to take the said Tab. Even then opposite parties No.1 & 2 are ready to hand over the Tab in the court subject to payment of Rs. 1750/- being the price of the Touch Panel. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.3 did not appear despite service, as such it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 1.1.2015.
4. Complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1, original bill Ex.C-2, copy of Job sheet Ex.C-3, copy of legal notice Ex.C-4, postal receipts Ex.C-5, mobile numbers of opposite party Ex.C-6.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Ajay Kumar Ex.OP1/1, copy of bill Ex.OP1/2, copy of bill Ex.OP1/3, copy of job sheet Ex.OP1/4, copy of letter Ex.OP1/5.
6. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Sahil Arora Ex.OP2/1.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
8. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purhased Karbonn A34 HD Tab from opposite party No.3 vide bill invoice dated 7.2.2014 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 7500/-. As per complainant's version the said mobile set developed fault in touch panel. The complainant approached opposite party No.2, authorized service centre of opposite party No.1 manufacturing. Opposite party No.2 received the mobile set against service job sheet dated 7.8.2014 Ex.C-3 with the assurance to remove the defect within a day or so. But opposite party No.2 could not remove the fault and every time the complainant was asked to come after two or three days. Opposite party No. 3 neither removed the defect nor returned the mobile set to the complainant. The complainant served legal notice dated 30.9.2014 Ex.C-4 to the opposite party through registered post, postal receipt of which is Ex.C-5 but even then the opposite party neither repaired the set nor returned the same to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. Whereas the case of opposite party is that the customer get one year limited warranty for the product subject to terms and conditions contained in the warranty card. The warranty is not absolute but limited one which does not cover normal wear and tear including physical damages, wear and tear of camera lenses, batteries and display, transport cost, defects caused by rough handling, bending, compressing, dropping, water locked etc. One Lovepreet Singh on behalf of the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 service centre for the first time on 7.8.2014 i.e. after six months from the date of purchase of the said set in question. Said Lovepreet Singh concealed the material facts as he approached the opposite party No.2 on 7.8.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C-3 that touch panel break/faulty problem. Before the job sheet was issued to Lovepreet Singh, opposite party No.2 told him that the touch panel screen of the mobile set was physically damaged due to mis-handling and the same is not covered under the warranty period and he has to pay cost of the same i.e. Rs. 1750/- and the same was marked in the job sheet as warranty status is UWV i.e. “under warranty void”. Said Lovepreet Singh as well as complainant had full knowledge that the replacement of the touch panel which was damaged due to mis-handling, is liable to be replaced on cost payable by the customer. Said Lovepreet Singh told the officials of opposite party No.2 that he would tell opposite party No.2 after two or three days . Said Lovepreet Singh approached opposite party No.2 and told to replace the touch panel without charging any amount. Again the opposite party No.2 stated the detailed facts to Mr. Lovepreet Singh, who then told the opposite party No.2 to replace the touch panel first, then he would pay the cost accordingly. So on the oral consent of Lovepreet Singh to opposite party No.2 after two months, the set was sent to opposite party No.1 to replace the touch panel and issued him a job sheet for proof of sending the said set to SFR/L4 level. The set was received back from opposite party No.1 then opposite party No.2 called Mr. Lovepreet Singh to collect his said Tab on payment of Rs. 1750/- . But Mr. Lovepreet Singh demanded the said Tab without payment of any charges and ultimately refused to take the said Tab from opposite party No.2 and threatened the officials of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 is ready to hand over the said Tab to the complainant or in the court subject to payment of Rs. 1750/- being the price value of the touch panel. So the complainant has concealed all these material facts and has mis-led the Forum. Ld.counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased Karbonn Tab from opposite party No.3 for Rs. 7500/- on 7.2.2014 vide invoice/bill Ex.C-2 . The complainant approached opposite party No.2, authorized service centre of Karbonn Company and handed over the said Tab to opposite party No.2 with the default “touch panel faulty/VOC27”. Opposite party No.2 took the said Tab from the complainant and issued job sheet Ex.C-2 in which opposite party No.2 has categorically mentioned that the status of warranty is “UWV” (Under warranty void) that the case of the complainant's Tab was not covered under warranty as the touch panel of the Tab was broken due to mis-handling and the same requires replacement on payment of cost of the touch panel i.e. Rs. 1750/- by the customer and this fact has also been mentioned on the job sheet Ex.C-3. Lovepreet Singh on behalf of the complainant produced the said Tab before the opposite party No.2 and said Lovepreet Singh gave his consent for the replacement of the touch panel on payment basis . Resultantly opposite party No.2 sent the Tab to opposite party No.1 manufacturer for replacement of the touch panel and when the said Tab received back from opposite party No.1 after replacement of the touch panel of the Tablet and the Tab became fully functional, opposite party No.2 told the complainant to collect the same on payment of cost of the touch panel i.e. Rs. 1750/- written on the job sheet Ex.C-3 itself. But the complainant instead of collecting the said Tab on payment of cost of the touch cost of the touch panel i.e. Rs. 1750/- to opposite party No.2, filed the present complaint. It stands fully proved on record that opposite party No.2 while issuing the job sheet dated 7.8.2014 to the complainant Ex.C-3, has categorically mentioned that the status of warranty of Tab of the complainant is “UWV” (Under Warranty Void) which means that case of the complainant is not covered under warranty as the touch panel of the Tab was broken due to mis-handling and the same requires replacement on payment of its cost by the customer and opposite party No.2 has categorically mentioned that cost of touch panel is Rs. 1750/- which has been written on the job sheet itself and that job sheet Ex.C-3 has been produced by the complainant himself which fully proves that the fault in the Tab of the complainant was not covered under the warranty and opposite party No.2 has repaired the Tab of the complainant i.e. replaced the touch panel of the Tab and made the Tab of the complainant fully functional. The complainant could not produce any evidence that the breaking of touch panel due to mis-handling of the set is covered under the warranty . So the opposite party No.2 was justified in repairing the Tab of the complainant i.e. replacing the touch panel of the complainant which was broken due to mis-handling, on payment basis and the complainant was made fully known that cost of the touch panel is Rs. 1750/- which is payable by the complainant. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are still ready to hand over the Tab to the complainant which has been made fully functional by opposite party No.2 on payment of Rs. 1750/- to the complainant. As such we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
11. Consequently we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
12. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
19.05.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
