Haryana

Panchkula

CC/77/2015

shriom chauhan. - Complainant(s)

Versus

pioneer traders. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

02 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	77 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	23.04.2015
Date of Decision	:	02.09.2015

                                                                                          

Shriom Chauhan son of Shri Mohinder Singh, resident of Morni, Sub-Tehsil Morni, Tehsil and District Panchkula.

                                                                             ….Complainant

Versus

1. Pioneer Traders, SCO No. 1038, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory.
2. Ranvir Mobile Solutions, Authorized Service Centre Karbonn, Shop No. 62, Village Abhaypur, Industrial Area, Tehsil and District Panchkula, through its Manager.
3. Karbonn Mobile Pvt. Ltd. D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 through its Care Manager.

                                                                   …. Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                                    Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.S.P.Attri, Member

                            

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

OP no. 1 is already exparte.

Mr. Ankush Sharma, Advocate for Ops no. 2 & 3.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. In brief, the complainant had purchased a Karbonn Model S5 Plus,  IMEI No. 911309354065735 mobile phone from OP no. 1 on 08.02.2014 vide bill no. 11549 (Annexure C-1) for an amount of Rs.11000/- with  a warranty of one year. At the time of purchase of mobile, the salesman of OP no. 1 assured the complainant that the set is all right and it would work effectively & the battery back-up of the handset is three days.  After few months of its purchase there was problem with regard to charging, head phone connectivity, battery backup etc.  The complainant brought the defect of mobile to the notice of OP no. 1 but OP no. 1 did not pay any heed.  The complainant requested many times to OP no. 1 about the defect but OP no. 1 refused to entertain the request of complainant.  After several requests, the OP no. 1 directed the complainant to approach the OP no. 2 for rectification of the defect.  On 21.11.2014, the complainant brought the said defects to the notice of OP no. 2.  The officials of the OP no. 2 took the handset of the complainant and issued job sheet no. 2059 (Annexure C-3) & directed the complainant to come after one month for taking the handset after rectification of defect.  After one month, the complainant visited the office of OP no. 2 but the official of the OP no. 2 again told to come after 10-15 days for taking the delivery of the handset.  OP no. 2 disclosed to the complainant that still they have not received the accessories from OP no. 3 and after receipt of the same the handset would be repaired. Again in the third week of January, 2015 the complainant visited the office of OP no. 2  and asked about the handset but the officials of the OP no. 2 again stated that they have not received the accessories from OP no. 3.  The complainant requested the executive that the mobile is in warranty period and to repair the handset without any charges or to replace the same with new one but the official denied the request of the complainant.  On 06.02.2015, the complainant again visited the office of OP no. 2.  OP no. 2 handed over the handset to the complainant and stated that the handset is in perfect condition.  After checking of the handset the complainant was shocked to see that the problem was still there.  The complainant again brought the said defect into the knowledge of the OP no. 2.  Again OP no. 2 took the handset of the complainant and issued fresh job sheet no. 2341 dated 6.02.2015 (Annexure C-4) and directed the complainant to come after a week for taking the handset.  After that the complainant again visited the office of OP no. 2 for taking the delivery of the handset but OP no. 2 directed the complainant to come after one month.  On 09.03.2015, the complainant again visited the OP no. 2 for the delivery of the handset but to no avail.  This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the OP no. 1 through speed post and the same has not been received back served or unserved. It is deemed to be served and the OP no. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 05.06.2015.
3. The Ops no. 2 & 3 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections submitted that the complainant visited the OP no. 2 on 21.11.2014 with the problem of “Head Phone Jack, Charging”.  It is submitted that OP no. 2 had issued the job sheet and checked the problem in mobile set as per voice of the customer & rectified the defect in said mobile phone.  It is submitted that the complainant used the said mobile phone more than 9 to 10 months but no complaint was received by the opposite party. It is submitted that the battery was guaranteed by the Ops no. 2 & 3 for only six month. It is submitted that the complainant visited the OP no. 2 in the month of February and deposited the said phone again in out of warranty for another problem. It is submitted that after checking of the said mobile phone the OP no. 2 informed the complainant telephonically about rectification of defect. It is submitted that the complainant did not come to collect the mobile and the said mobile set is still laying with the Op no. 2 in good condition. It is submitted that it is the duty of the customer to collect the mobile from OP no. 2. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-6  and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, learned counsel for Ops no. 2 & 3 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R2/A alongwith documents Annexure R2/1 & R2/2 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard complainant and learned counsel for Ops no. 2 & 3 and have also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.
6. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a Karbonn Model S5 plus, IMEI No. 911309354065735 mobile phone from OP No.1 vide bill no. 11549 (Annexure C-1) dated 08.02.2014 for an amount of Rs.11,000/- with  a warranty of one year. After a few month of its purchase, the mobile phone started giving problem in charging, head phone connectivity and battery backup etc. On 21.11.2014, the complainant approached the Op No.2-authorised service center for rectification of defect who deposited & issued the job sheet No.2059 (Annexure C-3) and directed the complainant to come after one month for taking the delivery of the mobile phone. After one month, the complainant approached the OP No.2 for taking the delivery of the handset but the official of OP No.2 asked the complainant to come after 10-15 days as they have not received the accessories from the Op No.3. On 06.02.2015, the complainant approached the Op No.2 and took the delivery of the handset but after checking the handset, he came to know that the problem was still there and he again deposited the handset with the Op No.2 vide job sheet No.2341 (Annexure C-4) dated 06.02.2015.
7. On the other hand, the counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 also admitted in their written statement that the mobile phone had the problem of head phone jack and charging. It is submitted that they repaired/rectified the handset and informed the complainant telephonically about the rectification of the defect but the complainant did not come to collect the handset.
8. From the above, it is clear that the handset is still lying in the possession of Op No.2. However, the OPs have not placed on record any cogent/authentic document with mention of its efforts that it actually informed the complainant to collect the repaired handset. In their written statement, the Ops submitted that in the month of February, 2015, when the complainant deposited the handset with the Op No.2, it was out of warranty whereas the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 08.02.2014 (Annexure C-1) with a warranty of one year i.e. from 08.02.2014 to 07.02.2015 so the handset was very much within warranty period.
9. In view of the above circumstances, the act of Ops in keeping the handset of the complainant in their possession for a long time, clearly proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly caused immense mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed accordingly. The Ops are directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase till realisation.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.7000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

02.09.2015      S.P.ATTRI            ANITA KAPOOR         DHARAM PAL

                        MEMBER          MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                 

                                                                   DHARAM PAL

                                                                    PRESIDENT