DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.1053 of 2013
Sri Rupesh Rastogi, aged about 39 yrs.,
S/o Justice R.K. Rastogi,
R/o 9C/116 Mohan Kunj,
Vrindavan Yojna Phase-II,
Lucknow.
……Complainant
Versus
1. Pradeep Jain,
Managing Director,
Karbonn Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.,
3913, Off 7th Main, HAL 2nd Stage,
Appareddy Playa, Indira Nagar,
Bengaluru, Karnataka,
India-560038.
2. Ashish Agarwal,
Director Karbonn Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.,
3913, Off 7th Main, HAL 2nd Stage,
Appareddy Playa, Indira Nagar,
Bengaluru, Karnataka,
India-560038.
3. Karbonn Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.
Through Authorized Representative,
3913, Off 7th Main, HAL 2nd Stage,
Appareddy Playa, Indira Nagar,
Bengaluru, Karnataka,
India-560038.
4. Babua Fone Centre,
3rd Floor Sri Ram Tower,
Lucknow. .......Opp. Parties
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for payment of Rs.9,738.00 with interest at the market rate and compensation of Rs.75,000.00 and cost of litigation.
The case in brief of the Complainant is that he had purchased a Karbonn A21 mobile handset from Indiatimes Shopping on 16.10.2012 for Rs.9,738.00. The officials of the Indiatimes shopping had purchased the aforementioned hand set from Singh Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and then supplied it to the Complainant via courier. In August, 2013 within the warranty period of one year commencing from the date of purchase, the wi-fi of the handset stopped working. To rectify the above problem, the Complainant submitted the handset for repairing at the authorised service centre of Karbonn mobile on 06.08.2013 to OP No.4. On 10.08.2013 the Complainant received a call from service centre from phone informing him that his handset has been repaired. The Complainant went to the service centre and saw that wi-fi was working fine, hence he collected the handset. When the Complainant tried to start the camera, he got the message on the screen of mobile handset “Can’t connect to the camera.” The camera of the handset was working fine before it was given to the service centre. The handset had been damaged at the service centre because of which the camera had stopped working in the handset. The Complainant had written an email on 10.08.2013 giving all the facts to the official email IDs of Karbonn Mobiles but got no reply. Thereafter, the Complainant submitted his mobile again at the authorized service centre, OP No.4 for repairing on 12.08.2013. On 27.08.2013 the Complainant called the employee of OP No.4 and he informed that his handset has been repaired. The Complainant went to the service centre to receive the phone and the phone was handed over to him. The Complainant checked the phone to
see whether the fault has been rectified or not and he found that the camera of the handset was still not working properly, the touch focus of the camera was not working and in movie mode the resulting image was very shaky. The Complainant reported the problems to the staff of OP No.4 and they admitted that the set had still some problem and advised the Complainant to leave the handset for further repairing. On 28.08.2013 the Complainant reported the whole incident to Karbon Mobiles Ltd. on their official email IDs. The reply of email was received by the Complainant on 29.08.2013 wherein the Complainant was assured that his problem was under process and the current status would be informed to him shortly. The Complainant replied this email on 29.08.2013 and he provided the job sheet number of customer receipt of handset submission. After submission of the handset the Complainant contacted employee of OP No.4 a number of times and visited OP No.4 but his handset has not been repaired till date. The handset has some manufacturing defect because of which the Wi-Fi of the handset got defective within one year of the purchased date. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, hence this complaint.
Notices were issued to the OPs but none appeared, hence the case proceeded exparte against OPs vide orders passed on 19.04.2014.
The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 3 papers and 7 annexures with the complaint.
Heard Counsel for the Complainant and perused the entire record.
In this case, the Complainant had purchased a Karbonn A21 mobile handset from Indiatimes Shopping on 16.10.2012 for Rs.9,738.00. The officials of the Indiatimes shopping had purchased the aforementioned hand set from Singh Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and then supplied it to the Complainant via courier. In August, 2013 within the warranty period of one year commencing from the date of purchase, the wi-fi of the handset stopped working. To rectify the above problem, the Complainant submitted the handset for repairing at the authorised service centre of Karbonn mobile on 06.08.2013 and again on 12.08.2013 to OP No.4 but could not rectify the defect. The Complainant has filed photocopy of purchase receipt of mobile handset as annexure No.1 showing that the Complainant had placed an order of Karbonn A21 on 16.10.2012 of Rs.9,738.00. The Complainant has filed photocopy of invoice of mobile handset as Annexure No.2 which shows that Complainant had purchased the mobile set of Rs.9,738.00 on 18.10.2012. The Complainant has filed photocopy of mails as annexure No.3, 5, 6, 7 which show that the Complainant sent and replied emails to the OPs regarding the defects in the handset. The Complainant has also filed photocopy of terms and conditions of warranty. From the averments made by the Complainant in his affidavit, it is clear that the mobile set started functioning improperly after its purchase by the Complainant and that it could not be rectified despite many complaints made by the Complainant. There is no response or reply filed by the OPs nor they have filed any counter affidavit to the affidavit filed by the Complainant, hence there is no reason to disbelief the version of the Complainant stated on oath. It is abundantly clear that the mobile set became defective during the warranty period and it could not be rectified despite many complaints made by the Complainant. Therefore it is clear that the OPs sold a defective mobile set to the Complainant and therefore they have committed deficiency in service as also an unfair trade practice. The Complainant is therefore, entitled to receive a new mobile set in place of the old one from the OPs and in case they are unable to provide a new mobile set of the same value then the OPs have to pay the cost of the mobile set i.e. Rs.9,738.00 with interest. The Complainant is also entitled to get compensation for mental and physical harassment as also cost of the litigation.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to provide a new mobile set of Rs.9,738.00 and in case they are unable to provide a new mobile set of the same value then the OPs have to pay the cost of the handset i.e. Rs.9,738.00 with 9% per annum interest from the date of filing of the complaint till the final payment is made to the complainant.
The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.4,000.00 (Four Thousand Only) for mental & physical harassment and Rs.3,000.00 (Three Thousand Only) as cost of the litigation.
The entire amount is to be paid within a month.
(Rajarshi Shukla) (Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member Member President Dated: 17 June, 2015
