Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/276

Amit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Sachidanand N.K.Gallery - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

04 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 276 of 23.04.2015

Date of Decision            :   04.04.2016      

Amit Singh, aged 24 years, son of Shri Danpati Singh, resident of Plot No.7335/15, Street No.11, Daba Colony, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Shri Sachidanand N.K.Gallery, B-II-1860, Corner Shop, Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana-8, through its Authorised Signatory.

2.Karbon Mobiles Authorized Service Centre, Smart Solution, Shop No.8, Top Floor, Minerva Market, Near Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana-141008 through its Manager.

3.Karbon Smart Service Solution, Customer Care Service, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.

 

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS.VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        In person.

For OPs                         :        Ex-parte

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) filed by complainant Sh.Amit Singh against Ops by claiming that he purchased mobile of make Karbon S5 Plus on 29.12.2013 vide bill No.R-1-36169 with IMEI No.911309354068945 for Rs.10,750/- from OP1. Though this mobile phone was used carefully as provided by instructions, but the same started giving problem of self switched off, while snapping the photograph. On instruction of OP1, OP2 the service centre was contacted and there the service engineer called upon the complainant to collect the mobile phone after 23 days. After 23 days, when the complainant went for collecting the mobile phone, then engineer of OP2 informed the complainant that mobile phone was sent to Delhi for removal of defect. Time of 15 days was given to the complainant for collecting the mobile phone. After 15 days, when the complainant went to service centre of OP2 and saw the mobile phone, then he found the touch screen of the mobile having cracks, due to which, the complainant refused to collect the mobile and asked the engineer of OP2 to replace the same with new one or to pay its value along with interest @12% p.a., because the mobile phone was under warranty period. At the time of sale of the mobile phone to the complainant, it was disclosed by the OPs as if mobile phone was free from fault and the fault, if any, will be removed within the warranty period of 12 months from the date of purchase. Complainant has suffered due to mal-functioning of the mobile set and the same is lying unused. Prayer made for directing the OPs to remove the defects in the mobile phone or to replace the same with new one or to refund the price of Rs.10,750/- along with interest @12% p.a. Compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- even claimed.

2.                Notice of the complainant issued to OPs, but none appeared for OPs, despite service and as such, they were proceeded against ex-parte.

3.                Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. CA1 and Ex.CA2 and then closed the evidence.

4.                Oral arguments of complainant heard. Records gone through carefully.

5.                Perusal of the bill Ex.CA1 reveals that mobile set was purchased from Op1 on 29.12.2013. On this bill Ex.CA1 itself it is mentioned that warranty of any mobile will be provided by their respective company service centre only. In view  of this noting of warranty clause, certainly vendor (Op1) cannot be held liable for removal     of defect. Liability of Op2 as service centre and that of OP3 as manufacturer    alone will remain.

6.                Mobile phone in question was deposited with OP2, the service centre on 29.11.2014 is a fact borne from perusal of receipt Ex.CA2. So defect surfaced in the mobile phone within one year of its purchase and as such, certainly the mobile phone was covered under the warranty period, when it started emitting problem. In Ex.CA2 itself it has been mentioned that there was an error in the camera and as such, case of the complainant is believable that defect in the camera developed within 1 year of warranty period. As that defect not removed till date and that is why, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP2 and OP3. As warranty period has now expired on 28.12.2014 and this complaint filed on 23.04.2015 and as such in view if all this by keeping in view  the equitable considerations in mind, it is fit and appropriate to direct OP2 and OP3 to repair the mobile phone in question of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copies of order, but in case, the mobile phone in question found to be not repairable, only then OP2 and OP3 will be liable to handover the new handset of the same make and model to the complainant.

7.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint against OP1 dismissed, but same allowed against OP2 and OP3 with directions to them to repair the mobile phone in question of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copies of order. In case, mobile phone in question found beyond repair by the engineer of OP2 and OP3, then they will be liable to replace the mobile phone in question with new one of same make and model. Compensation for mental pain and agony of Rs.2000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP2 and OP3, whose liability will be joint and several. Compliance of directions qua payment of compensation and litigation be also made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copies of order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. 

8.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                                 (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:04.04.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.