BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.148 of 2015
Date of institution: 06.04.2015
Date of Decision: 29.12.2015
Jai Parkash son of Shri Ganga Ram resident of House No.1956, Safeda Mohalla, Nayagaon, Punjab.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Prince Communication, Mobile Phone, Accessories, Lamination, Shop No.4, Sidhu Complex, Shiv Mandir Road, Naya Gaon, District Mohali, Punjab.
2. Karbon Mobile, D-170, Aukhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi.
3. Karbon Service Centre, 1104-1105, First Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Sunil K. Dixit Advocate, alongwith complainant.
OPs ex-parte.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:
(a) pay him Rs.3300/- towards price of the mobile with interest @ 18% from the date of purchase till actual realisation.
(b) pay him compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
(c) pay him Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
The complainant purchased Karbon Mobile from OP No.1 vide bill dated 20.08.2014 Ex.C-1. From the date of its purchase the mobile set was not working properly and was giving problems. The complainant visited OP No.3 who is authorised service centre of OP No.2 but did not found proper solution for his mobile phone and finally the complainant deposited his mobile for repair on 24.01.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C-2. OP No.3 assured that the mobile set would be returned within a week. The complainant sent e-mail dated 07.02.2015 which was responded by OP No.3 and assured to resolve the complaint at the earliest. Again vide his e-mail dated 20.02.2015 the complainant requested OP No.3 to return his mobile set within 10 days and the OP No.3 in its reply assured to resolve the problem soon. The complainant again sent e-mail dated 11.03.2015. But till today the mobile set has not been returned to the complainant after repairs. Thus, with these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. Despite dasti service upon OP No.1 through complainant on 06.06.2015 and upon OP No.3 through postal authorities on 09.06.2015 none appeared for them. Thus, OP No.1 and 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.06.2015.
3. As per report of the postal authorities, OP No.2 refused to receive the notice and thus OP No.2 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.11.2015.
4. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-2.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through written arguments filed by him.
6. The complainant has proved the purchase of mobile hand set from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 20.08.2014 Ex.C-1. The said mobile hand set is of Carbon Make manufactured by OP No.2. As per the complainant, since its purchase the mobile set was not working and he has, therefore, approached OP No.3 the service centre for rectification of problems and repair of the mobile hand set vide job sheet 24.01.2015 Ex.C-2. The OP No.3 has failed to remove the defects and repair the handset and kept the handset with him till date. The complainant approached OP No.2 vide e-mail dated 09.02.2015 for its intervention to resolve the issue. The said e-mail has been duly acknowledged and responded to by OP No.2 on 11.03.2015 as is evident from the copies of e-mail attached with the additional affidavit of the complainant dated 16.04.2015. As per the e-mail of OP No.2, it accepted having received the complaint of the complainant and assured the resolution at the earliest but till date neither the problem has been rectified nor the handset has been returned to the complainant.
7. Thus from the above discussion, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice has been proved by the complainant which is writ large on the part of OP No.2 and 3. Therefore, the complaint against OP No.2 and 3 deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated as both OP No.2 and 3 have failed to provide proper and effective after sale service to the complainant and have further deprived the complainant from the use and benefit of his valuable property.
8. So far OP No.1 is concerned, though he is a seller who has sold the mobile handset in question to the complainant and received the sale consideration from him. He cannot shed of his liability of after sale service which is integral part of the sale of the mobile hand set in question.
9. The complaint is, therefore, allowed against all the OPs with the following directions:
(a) to refund to the complainant Rs.3,300/- (Rs. Three thousand three hundred only) with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from 20.08.2014 till actual refund.
(b) to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) on account of mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
December 29, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
