BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No.405 of 2014 Date of Institution: 22.10.2014
Date of Decision: 29.1.2015
Kapoor Singh, aged 51 years, son of Harkishan Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Chak Saido Ke, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Fazilka.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. Priyanshu Communications, FF Road, Opposite New Grain Market Gate, Jalalabad (W), through its Authorized Signatory/responsible person.
2. Durga Telecom, Bagga Bazaar, Jalalabad(W), Authorized Service Centre of Karbon Mobiles, through its authorized signatory.
3. Karbon Mobiles, Jaina Marketing & Associates at D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-11000, through its Authorized Signatory, India. ........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate
For the opposite parties : Sh. Vishal Arora, Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
S. Gyan Singh, Member
C.C. No.405 of 2014 \\2//
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a mobile Karbon K444 from opposite party No.1 on 2.3.2012 and paid Rs.2000/-. After few months, the mobile in question stopped functioning and the complainant approached opposite party No.1, who further sent the complainant to opposite party No.2 i.e. the Authorized Service Centre of opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.2 withheld the mobile phone in question and sent it to Delhi for repair and after two months, opposite party No.2 returned the same to the complainant. Further it has been pleaded that mobile in question was not functioning properly after the repair due to manufacturing defect and complainant approached opposite party No.2 again and again, but opposite party No.2 did not accept the request of the complainant. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to give new mobile cell or to refund its price along with interest. Further he has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that the mobile
C.C. No.405 of 2014 \\3//
in question was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 on 2.3.2012 with a warranty of one year i.e. till 2.3.2013. The complainant visited the service centre of Karbonn mobile i.e. opposite party No.2 on 19.10.2012 after about seven months from the date of purchase within the warranty period. Opposite party No.2 serviced the mobile of the complainant and removed the dust surrounding the mic and also changed the mic with a new one to the satisfaction of the complainant free of cost and handed over the same to the complainant in OK and working condition on the same day. Thereafter, the complainant again visited opposite party No.2 on 5.11.2012 within warranty period with the problem that mobile of the complainant fell down from his hand in the room and there was no display of number or name of the person, who calls on the said mobile. The mobile of the complainant was sent to L3/L4 centre, Delhi for repairs free of any cost in the interest of the customer and the same was returned to the complainant on 15.12.2012 in okay and working condition. On receiving the mobile, the complainant started insisting upon replacement of the mobile and he was informed that it can be replaced within warranty period only if there is any manufacturing defect in the same and the same cannot be replaced as the problem has occurred with the mobile phone due to the act of omission and commission by the complainant himself. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the
C.C. No.405 of 2014 \\4//
complaint has been prayed for.
3. Learned counsel for complainant tendered into evidence Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 to 3 tendered into evidence Ex. OP-1 to 3/1 to Ex.OP-1 to 3/2 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
5. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties have sold defective mobile handset having manufacturing defect to the complainant, which does not function properly even after its repairs by the opposite parties, but the opposite parties have not replaced the same with new one despite repeated requests of the complainant. Purchase of mobile handset in question by the complainant from opposite party No.1 with warranty of one year has been admitted. The complainant has also placed on file expert opinion issued by Sandeep Singh of Momi Mobile Centre, Attari, Ferozepur as Ex.C-3, vide which the said Sandeep Singh has opined that he is owner of Momi Mobile Centre, Attari, Ferozepur and has been doing the work of mobile repairs; he has checked the mobile phone of Kapoor Singh and on checking he found that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile hand set due to which software cannot be installed properly,
C.C. No.405 of 2014 \\5//
as a result of which display does not work properly. This expert opinion has been further corroborated with the duly sworn affidavit of said Sandeep Sing, which has been placed on the file as Ex.C-4. The said Sandeep Kumar has not been subjected to cross-examination by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have pleaded that the mobile hand set cannot be replaced as the problem has occurred with the mobile phone due to the act of omission and commission by the complainant himself. But no evidence has been placed on the file by the opposite parties to prove this assertion. Copy of Job Sheet placed on the file by the opposite parties as Ex.OP-1 to 3/2 does not disclose any alleged act of omission and commission on the part of the complainant. Even during the proceedings of the present complaint, the opposite parties have never tried to get check the mobile handset in question and redress the grievance of the complainant. It has been established on the file that the mobile handset in question has some manufacturing defect and it is beyond repair. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to replace the mobile handset in question with new one.
6. In view of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and the opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile hand set in question with defect free new one of same make and model and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile hand set in question to
C.C. No.405 of 2014 \\6//
opposite party No.1 within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This order is directed to be complied with jointly and severally by opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced
29.1.2015 (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
President
(Gyan Singh) Member
