Punjab

Patiala

CC/14/282

Mr. Chandan Bhandari - Complainant(s)

Versus

The ManagerSingla Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

04 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

Complaint No. CC/14/282 of 14/10/2014

Decided on 04/02/2015

 

Chandan Bhandari, 4509/1, Dogra Mohalla, Sirhindi Gate, Patiala, Punjab-147001.

….Complainant.

Versus

 

1. The Manager, Singla Communicators, SCO 65, New Leela Bhawan, Patiala.

2. The Managing Director, Karbonn Mobiles, United Telelinks Ltd., # 39/13, Off. 7^th Main, Hal 2^nd Stage, Appareddy Palya, Indira Nagar, Bangalore-560038.

….Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM

Sh. D. R. Arora, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

 

Present:

For Complainant : In person.

For Opposite parties. : Ex-parte.

 

ORDER

NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER:

1. The complainant purchased one mobile phone make Karbonn Titanium S5 bearing IMEI no.911309353426771 from OP no.2 vide invoice no.TIL/13-14/N/DL/11642269 dt. 25/10/2013 for an amount of Rs.10,549/-. It is averred that after one week of the said purchase, some problem relating to network and battery backup cropped up in the mobile phone. In order to get the defect rectified, the complainant filed a complaint with OP no.2, who told the complainant to visit the service centre of the company i.e. OP no.1. Accordingly, the complainant approached OP no.1 on 1/4/2014, whose executive inspected the phone but he was unable to rectify the problem and he told the complainant that his mobile phone was required to be sent to Level 3 service centre at Delhi for repair and so the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.1 on 01/04/2014.

2. It is further averred that the complainant waited for many days to get response from OPs but they never responded. In the last week of May 2014, when the complainant contacted OP no.1, he was provided a replaced new handset with IMEI no.911309351060556.

3. It is further averred that when the complainant used the new mobile phone, it started giving the same problem i.e. network and battery backup problem. The complainant against visited OP no.1, who told the complainant that his mobile hand set was again required to be sent to Level 3 Service Centre at Delhi for which the complainant refused as he was tired of sending the mobile phone for repairs to Delhi. As the complainant was extremely disappointed, he sent various emails to OP but to no use. On 10/09/2014, the complainant wrote a letter to OPs stating in detail his grievance in the hope of receiving a positive response but was badly disappointed. Ultimately, he approached this forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( for short the Act).

4. On notice, OP no.1 failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against ex-parte. Whereas OP no.2 appeared through counsel but it failed to file written statement despite having availed of three opportunities and rather absented from the proceeding and was thus proceeded against ex-parte.

5. In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and he closed the evidence.

6. The complainant failed to file written arguments. We have heard the complainant in person and gone through the evidence placed on record.

7. Ex.C-1 is the copy of the Invoice vide which the complainant purchased the mobile phone bearing IMEI no.911309353426771 on 25/10/2013. Ex.C-2 is the job sheet whereby the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.1. In para 6 of the complaint, the complainant has written that OP no.1 returned the replaced new mobile phone in the last week of May 2014 bearing IMEI no.911309351060556. As per Ex.C-4, the complainant again deposited the mobile phone with Op no.1 as there was some battery backup and network problem. OP rectified the defect and returned the mobile hand set to the complainant on the same day. According to job sheet Ex.C-3, the complainant again deposited the mobile hand set with Op no.1 on 22/09/2014 as there was some problem i.e. 'auto off ' and 'display blank' in the mobile phone and the OP rectified the problem and returned the mobile phone to the complainant on the same day i.e. 22/09/2014.

8. In the present case, the complainant approached OP no.1 on 03/09/2014 and 22/09/2014 and got the problem rectified but he did not disclose this fact in his complaint. The complainant has failed to produce any evidence on record regarding any problem that occurred in the mobile phone after 22/09/2014. However, he has approached the Forum within the warranty period. During the course of arguments, the complainant showed us the mobile phone and told that he is facing battery backup as well as network problem. The complainant stated that he is using 2 G network and that 2 G network is very slow. We cannot give directions to OPs to update the same. Regarding battery backup problem, OP is liable to rectify the same as it occurred during warranty period.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to OP no.1 to rectify the battery backup problem to the satisfaction of the complainant. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case no order as to cost. Order be complied by the OP within a period of one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated: 04/02/2015.

D. R. Arora Neelam Gupta

President Member