Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/214/2018

Pradeep Kumar.G.M - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director,Karbonn Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Thippeswamy.N

14 Mar 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:22.10.2018

DISPOSED  ON:14.03.2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:214/2018

 

DATED:  14^th MARCH 2019

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :    PRESIDENT                            B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI:

BSc., MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Mr.Pradeep Kumar.G.M, Aged about 30 Years, Business, R/o "Basaveshwara", Mahaveer Naraga, B.D.Road, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.Thippeswamy. N, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Managing Director, Karbonn Mobile, #39/13 off 7th Main Hall Road, II Stage, Appareddy Palya, Indira Nagara, Bangalore-560 003.   2. Authorized Service Center, Karbonn Mobile, "Matru Shree Tele Links", Represented by its Proprietor, Opp:to KSTRC Bus Stand, Bangalore Road, Challakere.   (OP No.1 ex-parte and OP No.2 In-Person)

ORDER

SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :    PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to replace the defective handset or to refund Rs.91,999/- with interest @ 12% p.a and to grant such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, on 27.01.2018 the complainant has purchased one new 4G Mobile i.e., Karbon Titanium mobile handset from OP No.1 through online by paying an amount of Rs.6,999/- and the EMI Number of the handset is 911603050045060.  After 15 days from the date of purchase the problems persists in the said hand set i.e., overheating, not charging properly, hanging when using the internet, camera not working properly, not hearing the voice at time using the outgoing and incoming calls.  The complainant informed the same to OP No.2, OP No.2 received the said handset and kept in their custody for 45 days and thereafter stated that, the company has supplied defective handset, which has software problem and sent the handset to complainant through courier on 17.09.2018.  But, the problem repeats as stated above.  The OP No.2 has not cured the defects found in the handset and not sent the same to the manufacturer, which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.  The efforts made by the complainant to cure the problems found in the handset went in vain.  The OPs have done unfair trade practice and caused deficiency in service.  The cause of action for this complaint arises on 27.01.2018 when the complainant has purchased the above handset through online, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

3.      The notice issued by this Forum was served on the OPs.  OP No.2 appeared in person and filed version, but OP No.1 did not appear before this Forum and hence placed ex-parte. 

OP No.2 appeared in person through Lokesh C/o Matru Sri Tele-links and filed objection stating that, on 01.05.2018 the complainant approached their service centre and handed over the mobile, but he told the complainant that, their service centre was closed before purchasing the above mobile handset.  For that, the complainant told the OP No.2 that, he will pay the repair charges and requested to repair the mobile handset.  Thereafter, the OP No.2 has given estimate towards the cost of repairs.  It is further submitted that, after 30 days i.e., on 01.05.2018 the complainant received back the handset without any repair.  It is further submitted that, the OP No.2 firm was closed before purchasing the handset, therefore, there is no relationship of consumer and service provider with the complainant, the relationship is only with the manufacturer of the mobile handset and hence, prayed for dismissal of this complaint against OP No.2.

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-4 were got marked and closed his side.  Affidavit of OP No.2 has taken as not filed and closed their side.   

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that, the OPs have committed deficiency of service to rectify/replace the mobile handset and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, complainant has purchased one on 27.01.2018 the complainant has purchased one new 4G Mobile i.e., Karbon Titanium mobile handset from OP No.1 through online by paying an amount of Rs.6,999/- under EMI Number 911603050045060.  But within 15 days from the date of purchase, the said hand set started to give problems i.e., overheating, not charging properly, hanging when using the internet, camera not working properly, not hearing the voice at time using the outgoing and incoming calls.  The same has been informed to OP No.2 and handed over the same to OP No.2 for repairs.  After 45 days OP No.2 told the complainant that, the company has supplied defective handset, which has software problem and sent back the handset to complainant through courier on 17.09.2018.  The OP No.2 has not cured the defects found in the handset and not sent the same to the manufacturer for repairs or replace. But, within warranty period, said mobile handset found defective, the same was informed to the OP No.2. But, the OP No.2 did not respond properly and not take any care to rectify the defects found in the said handset, which is a deficiency in service.  The complainant has purchased the said mobile by investing his hard earned money to make use of it, the same is to be accepted by this Forum.  The complainant has informed the OP No.2 to rectify the defects found in the mobile handset but, it went in vain.  Though the notice issued by this Forum was served, the OP No.1 has not appeared before this Forum in person or through advocate to disprove the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint with documentary proof.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, the contention taken by the complainant and also the documents produced by him i.e., Ex.A-1 to A-4 proves that, the OP No.1 has manufactured and sold the defective mobile handset.  Ex.A-1 is the bill dated 26.01.2018 for having purchased the mobile handset through online, Ex.A-2 is the Tax Invoice dated 27.01.2018, Ex.A-3, the estimate dated 01.05.2018 shows that, the handset was given to repairs to OP No.2.  The Ex.A-4 shows that, the mobile hand set was returned back through courier and the same has not been repaired. 

9.      We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant.  Those documents shows that, the complainant has purchased mobile handset from OP No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.6,999/- on 26.01.2018 vide Bill dated 26.01.2018 as per Ex.A-1, Tax Invoice No. S1907AB3217  as per Ex.A-2.  OP No.1 is the manufacturer, manufacturers will supply the articles to the dealers and the dealer sells the articles supplied by the OP No.1.  Here the OP No.1 is a service centre.  It is purely a defective material supplied by the OP No.1 to complainant. Therefore, OP No.1 and 2 are held liable to compensate the complainant for supplying defective material and for not servicing the same.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

            10.  Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that the OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,999/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of purchase i.e., 27.01.2018 till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings.

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

(This order is made with the consent of President after the correction of the draft on 15/03/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

 

 

                                     

          MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

 

-: ANNEXURES :-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Bill dated 26.01.2018
02	Ex-A-2:-	Tax Invoice dated 27.01.2018
03	Ex.A-3:-	Estimate of OP No.2 dated 01.05.2018
04	Ex.A-4:-	Courier receipt

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**