Head Office, Karbonn Mobiles, # 39/13 7th Main Hall IInd Stage Appaready Palya Indranagar Banglore (Karnataka).
..Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI VINOD JAIN, PRESIDENT
SMT. GURPREET KAUR GILL,MEMBER.
Present: Sushil Kumar complainant in person.
Sh. J.N.Monga, Advocate for opposite party no. 1.
Opposite parties No.2 & 3 ex-parte vide order dated 13.11.2014.
ORDER
On 12.7.2013, complainant Sushil Kumar purchased a mobile handset for Rs. 4200/- from M/s. Sachdeva Mobile Gallery, Near Bus Stand, Mandi Dabwali District Sirsa i.e. from opposite party no. 1. It was with the warranty of one year. But during this period of warranty, in January 2014, the mobile set started showing different defects. It used to be hanged. It also used to be stopped all of a sudden while being used. For it, complainant
2.
went to the service centre i.e. to opposite party no. 2. Opposite party no. 3 is the manufacturing company of the mobile set. Initially, the mobile hand set was repaired and was brought in working order, by the service centre and was handed over to the complainant; but only after two hours, it again started showing the same problems. Complainant went to opposite party no. 1, who told him that if the mobile hand set was not brought in working order, by the service centre at Sirsa i.e. by opposite party no. 2. Then he may also get his mobile hand set repaired, from the service centre at Bathinda, which was near of his village. The complainant then accordingly got his mobile set repaired, as many as four times from service centre of Bathinda. But after every repair, the mobile hand set showed the same problems. Once it was also sent to Delhi, but to no effect. Last time even the service centre, unauthorizedly, changed its body. The purchased mobile hand set was of black body, but now it is of white body. It is still not in working order having all the problems in it; hence this complaint.
2. Opposite parties no. 2 and 3, were duly proceeded ex-parte vide order of this forum dated 13.11.2014. However, opposite party no. 1, filed its reply but admitted the selling of the mobile hand set to the complainant. The rest of the case of the complainant has been denied for want of knowledge.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record, his own supporting affidavit and copy of cash memo for the purchase
3.
of the mobile set. Opposite party no. 1, has also placed on record its own supporting affidavit.
4. To our mind, there is nothing to disbelieve or to discredit, aforesaid pleaded case of the complainant, which gets full support and corroboration, not only from his own affidavit; but also from the fact that opposite parties no. 2 and 3 have opted for being proceeded exparte. Necessary inference is against opposite parties no. 2 and 3 and in favour of the complainant. Opposite party no. 1, has also not disputed or denied material case of the complainant. It is thus prove that the mobile hand set, sold to the complainant, had started showing different problems during the period of warranty and the same could not brought in order, by the service centres of the company. Further unauthorizedly, body of the mobile hand set was also changed. Since the mobile hand set, was un-successfully tried to be repaired number of times, by at least two different service centres, so it shows that there is some inherent defect in the mobile hand set. Therefore deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, is fully proved.
5. It goes without saying that the complainant has to suffer a lot, as he could not use the mobile set effectively. He has also been harassed a lot due to his repeated visits, to the different service centres of the company.
6. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 1, has however, contended that since, opposite party no. 1, has nothing to do to repair the mobile hand set and it had simply sold the mobile hand set to the
4.
complainant, so there is no deficiency of service on its part. We do not find any merit in it. Since said defective mobile hand set was sold to the complainant by opposite party no. 1, so opposite party no. 1, is jointly and severally liable towards the complainant.
7. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties, either to replace the mobile hand set within a new one, of the same or better make, within a period of 15 days, from the date of receipt the copy of this order. Otherwise, to refund its price of Rs. 4200/- to the complainant, with interest @ 10% per annum, from the date of the filing of complaint i.e. from 30.6.2014, till payment. Complainant is also hereby allowed compensation of Rs.5,000/- for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.550/- against the opposite parties. All the three opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable to comply the order. Prime responsibility, to comply the order shall be of the manufacturing company i.e. opposite party no. 3. But in case compliance is made by either of other two opposite parties, then complying party shall be duly indemnified by opposite party no. 3, with interest @ 10% per annum.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:26.3.2015. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
D.C.D.R.F.,
Sirsa.
