BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no.125 of 2016                                                                                  

                                                       Date of Institution         :    11.05.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   :    4.10.2016.

Gaurav Aggarwal (aged about 33 years) son of Sh. Gopal Krishan Aggarwal, resident of Aggarwal Furnishers, Janta Bhawar Road, Sirsa- 125055, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                              ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. Shree Anand Mobile Repairing Centre, through its Authorized signatory, near Punjab National Bank, Circular Road, Sirsa- 125055 (Haryana)

2. Anand Mobiles, Karbonn Care Service Centre (Opposite Samsung Service Centre), Dwarkapuri, Sirsa- 125055 (Haryana).

3. Karbonn Mobiles, Jaina Marketing Associates, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area Phase I, New Delhi.

                                                                                ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:                 SHRI S.B.LOHIA …………………PRESIDENT

                             SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………………MEMBER. 

Present:       Sh.Anil Bansal,  Advocate for the complainant.

Opposite parties exparte.

                   ORDER

                   Complainant, on 14.3.2015, purchased one mobile handset of Karbonn company model Octane Plus from opposite party no.1 for Rs.11,500/- vide bill No.282, with warranty of one year. However, just after a few months of purchase of said mobile, it used to switch off its own and it completely stopped functioning. The complainant approached op no.1 in last week of December, 2015 who retained the mobile for more than one month and complainant visited op no.1 time and again and then op no.1 returned the mobile without removing the defects and advised him to contact op no.2 i.e. Service Centre. Then complainant approached to op no.2 on 2.12.2015 who also kept the mobile with it and issued a service job sheet dated 4.12.2015 and mobile was sent to op no.3 for removal of defects. The mobile was received from company and handed over to complainant on 17.1.2016 but it functioned only for two days. The mobile was again sent to op no.3 by op no.2 for removal of defect of no display and job sheet dated 19.1.2016 was issued in this regard. The mobile was then handed over to him on 2.2.2016 but again it stopped working after three days. Thereafter, the mobile was sent to op no.3 on 5.2.2016 and it was received back on 6.3.2016 but it functioned for just 10 days. In this way, the mobile was sent to company for thrice for repair within warranty period, but the defects could not be rectified. Thereafter, ops No.1 &2 flatly refused to entertain the complaint of mobile of complainant and stated him that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile and its defects cannot be removed by any repair. The complainant also served legal notice upon ops on 16.4.2016 but to no effect. The complainant is entitled to refund of the cost of the mobile in question alongwith interest besides compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.6,000/- from ops. Hence, this complaint.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the ops. Op no.1 did not appear despite issuance of summons through registered cover and was proceeded against exparte.

3.                Initially, ops no.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and sought numerous opportunities for filing written statement but did not file the same, so their right for filing written statement was closed by order on 5.9.2016 and then on 3.10.2016 none appeared on behalf of ops no.2 & 3 and ultimately they were proceeded against exparte.

4.                The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill No.282 dated 14.3.2015 Ex.C2, receipt dated 2.12.2015 Ex.C3, service job sheet dated 4.12.2015 Ex.C4, service job sheet dated 19.1.2016 Ex.C5, legal notice dated 16.4.2016 Ex.C6, postal receipts Ex.C7 to Ex.C9 and acknowledgments Ex.C10 to Ex.C12.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit wherein he has testified all the facts so set out by him in his complaint. From the job sheets dated 4.12.2015, 19.1.2016 it is evident that defects occurred in the mobile set of the complainant during the warranty period of one year. Prior to that mobile was handed over to op no.1 for repair in the last week of October, 2015 who kept the same for more than one month but returned the same without removing defects. The defects in the mobile could not be removed despite repairs for three times and for the repair of the mobile in question the mobile was retained by the opposite parties for a long time.  There is nothing to dis-believe or to dis-credit aforesaid pleaded case of the complainant .

7.                Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties to replace the mobile in question with a new one of same description or with mobile of equivalent value or to refund the price of the mobile in question i.e. Rs.11,500/- to the complainant. Complainant is also hereby allowed compensation of Rs.3000/- for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- against the opposite parties. All the opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable to comply this order within a period of one month. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                 President,

Dated:4.10.2016.                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                    Member.