BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.371 of 2015

Date of Instt. 27.08.2015

Date of Decision :06.06.2016

Harcharan Singh aged about 38 years son of Karam Singh R/o VPO Sheron Bagha, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.Shree Ram Enterprises, 2 Shastri Market, Jalandhar.

2.Smart Solution Shop No.8, Top Floor, Minerva Market, Near Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana-141008.

3.Karbon Customer Care Services at D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OP No.3.

Opposite party No.1 exparte.

Complaint against OP No.2 dismissed vide order dated 9.2.2016.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties(herein called as OP) on the averments that complainant purchased a Karbon mobile handset from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 22.7.2014 for a sum of Rs.4900/-. Complainant submitted that the said mobile started giving earphone problem. He got checked the same from OP No.2 authorized service centre of OP No.3 vide job sheet dated 10.3.2015. The OP No.2 retained the mobile set and directed the complainant to check its status after one month from OP No.2. Complainant approached OP No.2 after expiry of one month and also made phone call to OP No.3 and they reported that the mobile set has been sent to OP No.2 duly repaired. When complainant again approached OP No.2 on 28.4.2015, they reported that the mobile set has been returned to OP No.3 on 25.4.2015 as it was giving the same problem and was not fully repaired. Complainant again contacted OP No.3 who reported that the mobile set in question has many problems i.e. set is not working and is dead, IMEI sticker loss, etc. Thereafter, Ops No.2 & 3 neither repaired the mobile set of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the Ops to replace the mobile set in question with new one. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written reply pleading that complainant purchased the mobile set on 22.7.2014 and he approached OP No.2 on 10.3.2015 i.e. after seven months with some problem of setting of mobile phone. The said problem occurred due to mishandling of the mobile set by the complainant. The mobile handset was repaired by OP No.2 but complainant refused to receive the handset and never visited the office of OP No.2 to collect his handset, rather filed the present complaint.

3. Notice of this complaint was given to the OP No.1 but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and evidence of OP No.3 was closed by order.

6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased a Karbon mobile handset from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 22.7.2014 Ex.C2 for a sum of Rs.4900/-. Complainant submitted that the said mobile started giving earphone problem. He got checked the same from OP No.2 authorized service centre of OP No.3 vide job sheet dated 10.3.2015 Ex.C1. The OP No.2 retained the mobile set and directed the complainant to check its status after one month from OP No.2. Complainant approached OP No.2 after expiry of one month and also made phone call to OP No.3 and they reported that the mobile set has been sent to OP No.2 duly repaired. When complainant again approached OP No.2 on 28.4.2015, they reported that the mobile set has been returned to OP No.3 on 25.4.2015 as it was giving the same problem and was not fully repaired. Complainant again contacted OP No.3 who reported that the mobile set in question has many problems i.e. set is not working and is dead, IMEI sticker loss, etc. Thereafter, Ops No.2 & 3 neither repaired the mobile set of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant. Complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops No.2 & 3 qua the complainant.

8. Whereas the case of the OP No.3 is that complainant purchased the mobile set on 22.7.2014 and he approached OP No.2 on 10.3.2015 i.e. after seven months with some problem of setting of mobile phone. The said problem occurred due to mishandling of the mobile set by the complainant. The mobile handset was repaired by OP No.2 but complainant refused to receive the handset and never visited the office of OP No.2 to collect his handset, rather filed the present complaint. Learned counsel for OP No.3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.3 qua the complainant.

9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased a Karbon mobile handset from OP No.1 on 22.7.2014 for a sum of Rs.4900/- vide invoice Ex.C2. The mobile set became defective and complainant approached OP No.2 authorized service centre of Karbon mobile on 10.3.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C1 and handed over the mobile set to OP No.2 who retained the mobile set and told the complainant to check its status after one month. Thereafter, complainant contacted OP No.3 company who told that the mobile set of the complainant has been sent to OP No.2 after repair but when the complainant approached OP No.2 on 28.4.2015, officials of OP No.2 stated to the complainant that the said mobile set was not repaired by OP No.3 company. So, the same was sent back to OP No.3 for proper repair. Thereafter, Ops No.2 and 3 neither repaired the mobile set of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant and mobile set is still lying with them. No doubt OP No.3 in their written version as well as their evidence i.e. affidavit Ex.OPW1/A has stated that OP No.2 repaired the mobile set of the complainant but complainant did not turn-up to collect the same. But OP No.3 could not produce any evidence from OP No.2, their own authorized service centre, to prove that the mobile set of the complainant was repaired by OP No.2 and same was made fully functional but the complainant did not turn-up to collect the same nor OP No.3 produced the mobile set in the Forum to prove that the same has been properly repaired and they are ready to hand over the same to the complainant. So, it stands fully proved on record that the mobile set of the complainant is still lying with Ops No.2 & 3 and they failed to repair the same and make it fully functional and are ready to return to the complainant. So, it is clear that the mobile set of the complainant is not repairable. As such, Ops No.2 & 3 are liable to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one.

10. Resultantly, we allow the complaint and OPs No.2 and 3 are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund the price of the mobile set to the complainant i.e. Rs.4900/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which OPs No.2 & 3 shall be liable to pay interest @Rs.9/- % per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The OPs No.2 & 3 are also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

06.06.2016 Member President