Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/720

Gurwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

N.K.electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Rajput Adv.

23 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 741 of 30.10.2014

Date of Decision            :   23.11.2016

 

Gurvinder Singh s/o S Harbans Singh, R/o H.No.423/1, Bhandari Street, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001.

 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.N.K.Electronics, through its Proprietor/Partner, Shop No.A-1, Mandir Market, Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana.

2.Karbon Mobiles Company Limited, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi, through Director.

3.Dhir Electronics, through its Proprietor/Partner Gaushala Road, Near Div. No.3, Ludhiana.

4.Gupta Service Point, Shop No.6-7, St. No.13 ½, Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana.

 

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS.VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        Sh.Rahul Rajput, Advocate    

For OP1 to OP3             :        Ex-parte

For OP4                         :         Complaint already dismissed as withdrawn vide

order dated 17.08.2016.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant for his personal need purchased mobile phone from OP1 on 22.12.2013, a dealer at Ludhiana. At that time, it was disclosed as if the purchased mobile phone is of the best company in India and mobile phone will not cause any problem. Karbon S 2 mobile phone bearing IME No.911311400230867 was purchased for Rs.8500/- on 22.12.2013 through bill. After purchasing the mobile, problem of hang up was faced many times. Thereafter, in the month of January 2014, OP1 was approached for removing the problem, but the matter was dilly-dallied. On 18.4.2014, on advise of OP1, the complainant approached OP3, the authorized service centre of OP2, the manufacturer of the mobile. However, OP3 did not furnish satisfactory reply as to when the repair will be done. At that time, the complainant was disclosed as if there is problem of software as well as in parts of handset. Handset was returned to the complainant without rectifying the defects on 28.5.2014 by claiming that repair has been done. Op4 is also the authorized centre of OP2. On 28.5.2013, the complainant deposited the handset with OP4 by mentioning the problem in handset and thereafter, the complainant having rounds to the office of OP4, but neither the fault removed and nor the handset returned to the complainant. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing them to refund the price amount of Rs.8500/-. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- even claimed.

2.                OP1 to OP3 are ex-parte in this case, but complaint against OP4 was withdrawn by suffering statement by counsel for the complainant on 8.7.2016 and order for dismissal of complaint against OP4 as withdrawn was passed on 17.8.2016.

3.                Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and then closed the evidence.

4.                Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

5.                Ex.C1 is the invoice showing that mobile set in question was purchased for Rs.8500/- by the complainant from OP1 on 22.12.2013. Customer receipt Ex.C2 produced to show that the mobile set was deposited with service centre on 28.5.2014 for repair because of the fault of the dead handset. So, certainly contents of affidavit Ex.CA of complainant are correct that mobile set was taken to service centre of OP2 for repair on 28.5.2014 due to problem of dead handset.

6.                After going through invoice Ex.C1, it is made out that the warranty of the mobile set to be provided by the service centre only and goods once sold not to be taken back by the dealer because of specific clause of “no return no      exchange”. Warranty as per endorsement No.4 on footnote of Ex.C1 to be provided by the respective service centre of the company only and as such, certainly OP1 being dealer not responsible for replacement of the mobile set in question. In view of the problem of dead handset and in view of the terms and conditions of the warranty, responsibility is of the manufacturer i.e. OP2 through service centre i.e. OP3 to remove the defects or to replace the mobile set with new one. As per clause 2 of terms and conditions contained in Ex.C2, repaired/replaced product will be warranted for the balance of original warranty period. As the mobile set despite being dead has not been rectified, but as per allegations of complainant, Ops have not rectified the fault in the mobile set in question and as such, it is obvious that the mobile set is not repairable, even though defects developed therein within the warranty period of 1 year. Warranty was to lapse on 21.12.2014 by keeping in view the fact that the date of purchase is 22.12.2013. Even the complainant approached OP3 on 18.4.2014 for curing the fault of software as revealed from the contents of Ex.C3. So, submission advanced by counsel for the complainant has force that actually though the complainant approached the service centre of OP2, but the defects were not removed. So, unexpired duration of warranty remains for 7 months, if computed w.e.f.28.5.2014, the date on which the mobile set in question taken to service centre of OP2 as disclosed by contents of Ex.C2. As the product in question is not rectified, despite visits and calls by the complainant and as such, the complainant is entitled for replacement of the mobile set in question with new one of equal value of Rs.8500/-. The replaced mobile set will have warranty for remaining period of 7 months.

7.                As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OP2 and OP3 will replace the mobile set in question with new one of value equal to Rs.8500/- within 40 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, provided complainant deposits the defective mobile set along with accessories with OP3 within 20 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only), but litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP2 and OP3 only. Complaint against OP1 is dismissed. Payment of awarded compensation and litigation amounts will be made by OP2 and OP3 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Liability of OP2 and OP3 will be joint and several. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

8.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                                       (G.K. Dhir)

                                      Member                                                President

Announced in Open Forum                                                          Dated:23.11.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.