Per Shri Atul D. Alsi – Hon’ble President.

              The non applicant no. 1 i.e. Vikash Agrawal is the owner of Amit Traders who is carring business of sale of mobile and the non applicant no. 2 Anil Bhojwani is owner of Alfa System and the said Alfa System is the recognized service centre, which is situated at Gondia. 

2.            On dt. 15.01.2013 the complainant purchased a ‘Karban Smart Tab 10’ having its IMEI No. ST 1010 R 001191 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from shop of Amit Traders i.e. N.A. No. 1. 

3.            After purchasing within two days there were complication in the functioning of Karban Tab so the complainant immediately approached to O. P. No. 1 then O. P. No. 1 advised to the complainant to wait for some months.   But after two months there were many complications in the functioning of the said tab 10.  It was automatically hanged out.

4.            That, again the complainant approached to O. P. No. 1 Amit Traders.  The complainant placed the said Tab-10 on dt. 25.03.2013 of job sheet no. KJASCMH 130313 K 6603 K 6791 for its repairing and thereafter said phone was handed over to complainant.  But again it was not working.  The defect has not been removed.  Again the tab was handed over for repair.  It appears that their could have been manufacturing defect and thus it cannot be removed by the servicing centre.  The complainant went to shop of O. P. No. 1 but he has not given sufficient answers and did not return the tab.   

5.            The complainant sent the notice through Counsel Adv. Sachin Borkar on dated 31/10/2013 but O. P. neither replied nor replace the same tab.  Therefore the complainant suffers mental and economical loss.  Therefore the O. P. is liable for negligency of service.  Hence the complainant filed the case for mental and economically loss, i.e. total claim is of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest & cost.   

6.            After receiving the notice issued by the Forum, the O.P. No. 1 & 2 remain absent before Forum.  Hence the case proceeded ex-parte against them as per order dated 19/09/2014.

7.            The complainant has filed Copy of registered notice with A/D at page no. 11, Copy of receipt at page no. 13, Copy of service job sheet at page no. 14, Copy of bill at page no. 15, Copy of service job sheet at page no. 16, Copy of post office at page no. 17 to 19 and affidavit by way of evidence at page no. 23 on record.

8.            Heard the learned counsel Mr. S. K. Gadpayle for the complainant.                           

9.            Considering the rival contention of the party & submission made before us the following points arise for consideration & finding there on along with reasons.

REASONING & FINDINGS

10.                   The complainant has filed bill of Karbonn Smart Tab 10 issued by O. P. No. 1.   As per bill filed at page 15, dated 15.01.2013 bearing bill no. 6765 containing model no. IMEI/ST/1010/R001191 for the price of Rs. 10,000/- containing signature of O. P. No. 1 on bill.   Therefore prima-facie the complainant is “Consumer” & has purchased tab from O. P. No. 1. 

              The complainant has filed service job card sheet No. KJASPMH 13031K6603 dt. 25/03/2013 describing fault as “no power on (P1)”.  The complainants tab could not get repaired after frequent visit to O. P. No. 2 as per pleading and affidavit filed on record.  The tab is still in the possession of O. P. No. 1.  The O. P. No. 1 has unable to repair it & has not given back to the complainant without describing the factual position of tab.  Therefore it amounts to negligence on the part of O. P. No. 1.     

11.                   In this case O. P. No. 1 & 2 are served but not appeared hence the case proceeded ex-parte against them as per order dated 19 September, 2014.

12.                   The contention of complainant prima-facie proved as per documents filed on record and necessarily it is the duty of O. P. to repair the tab or return the tab for the reason of to be stated for not repairable to the complainant.   The tab of the complainant is coming under warranty period.   Hence O. P. No. 1 is liable for negligency of service to complainant.  Therefore O. P. No. 1 is liable to give new tab of same model along with compensation for mental torture & agony with cost to the complainant.  The O. P. No. 2 is acting upon the direction of O. P. No. 1 hence O. P. No. 2 is not liable to pay compensation. 

              Hence we pass the following order.       

-: ORDER :-

1.            The complaint is partly allowed.

2.            The O.P. No. 1 is directed to give new tab model Karbonn  Smart Tab-10 to the complainant.

3.            The O. P. No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for mental torture & mental agony to the complainant.  

4.            The O.P. No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.

5.            The O. P. No. 1 is directed to comply the aforesaid order within 30 days for the date of receipt of this order. 

6.            No order is passed against O. P. No. 2