The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by O.Ps. The O.P No.1 is the dealer, O.P No.2 is the authorised Service Centre of Karbonn Mobile Pvt. Ltd. and O.P No.3 is the Head Office of O.P No.1 and 2 and this Complainant was/is a Consumer under the O.Ps.

                         Shorn of unnecessary details briefly stated the case of the Petitioner is that the Complainant had purchased one mobile from the O.P No.1 i.e. Triratna Bhaban-227, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata-903 on 28.09.2014. The Complainant had paid Rs.4,975/- (Rupees Four thousand nine hundred seventy five) only towards its consideration and the O.P No.1 handed over the Warranty card for the Karbonn Mobile which covers warranty for 1 year from the date of purchase i.e. 28.09.2014 to 27.09.2015. The Complainant used the same mobile handset safely and securely in its true presecutives, as per the guidelines issued by the Company.

                         On 05.08.2015, the Complainant faced some Technical problems of the said Karbonn mobile due to touch screen problem. Then the Complainant went to O.P No.1 and complained about the defective condition of Karbonn mobile. The Complainant went to O.P No.2 for servicing of the above said mobile as per advice of O.P No.1. Thereafter, the Complainant had been to O.P No.2 and on verification of the said mobile, where the O.P No.2 assured to the Complainant for delivery of the same mobile after seven days only after repair. On such assurance given by the O.P No.2, the Complainant handed over his mobile set to the O.P No.2 for repair of the same. The Complainant went to O.P No.2 after completion of seven days, where the staff of O.P No.2 informed that the said mobile is not received from Head Office, so they are unable to deliver the same to the Complainant. Lastly, the Complainant went to O.P No.2 on 11.01.2016 and requested to repair/ replace the said mobile set as per warranty condition. But, the O.P No.2 strongly refused to replace/ repair the same for which finding no other way, the Complainant filed this case for necessary relief against the O.Ps. Non-repair/ replacement of the defective Karbonn mobile within the warranty period caused deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. The cause of action arose on 28.09.2014 i.e. from the date of purchase of Karbonn mobile and lastly on 11.01.2016 when the O.P No.2 intentionally and deliberately only to harass this Complainant did not repair/ replace the defective Karbonn mobile is within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The Complainant is legally entitled to get a new Karbonn mobile from the O.Ps and due to non-repair/ replacement during warranty period, this Complainant is suffering from a lot of harassment and mental agony. 

                         Prayer for repair/ replacement of the defective Karbonn mobile by the O.Ps jointly or severally and compensation towards mental agony and harassment and litigation cost in favour of this Complainant.

                         On review of records, it is noticed that the O.P No.1 has received the copy of the complaint petition on 04.02.2016 and S.R from O.P No.2 and 3 is not received at our end. Neither the O.Ps have represented themselves nor have filed their written versions till 12.05.2016. Hence the O.Ps are set ex-parte on 12.05.2016. Ex-parte hearing was on 05.07.2016.

                         The Complainant had purchased the above said mobile from O.P No.1 vide invoice No.57380/11894009, dt.28.09.2014 for Rs.4,975/- (Rupees Four thousand nine hundred seventy five) only and the Complainant had also gone to O.P No.2 (authorised service centre of Karbonn Mobile Pvt. Ltd.) for repair of the same defective mobile on 08.09.2015 (copy of invoice by O.P No.1 and service job sheet by O.P No.2 filed by the Complainant along with the complaint petition). Copy of service job sheet supplied by O.P No.2 on 08.09.2015 to the Complainant, where in repair cost column, it is mentioned that “Part used - cost”.

                         Warranty card supplied by O.P No.1 for Karbonn mobile in “scope and duration of warranty”, it is mentioned that:- “United Telelinks (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd. (‘UTL’) warrants to the purchaser (the ‘Customer’) each of its ‘Karbonn’ branded mobile phone products (the ‘Equipment’) sold by UTL through its authorised distributors are warranted to be free from defects in workmanship and material under normal use and service as given below, commencing from the date of purchase i.e. One (01) year for mobile phone (handset)” and in “How to avail of warranty service”, it is also mentioned that:- “In order to obtain warranty service, the Customer needs to bring the Equipment to UTL authorised service provider at the Customer’s own cost, together with all detachable parts, battery packs and charger. It must be delivered to the authorised service provider along with the purchase invoice bearing the Serial number, date of purchase and the duly filled and stamped warranty card”. The Complainant had deposited the above said defective mobile with O.P No.2 for repair of the same on 08.09.2015. But due to non-repair/ replacement of the said mobile amounts to deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps to the Complainant and mental agony and harassment also. Hence, the Order:-          

                                                       O R D E R

                         Having all regards to our judgment reflected above, the Complainant bears merit and the same is allowed with direction to O.Ps No.1 to 3 jointly or severally to repair the defective Karbonn Mobile in free of cost to the satisfaction of the Complainant within 30 days from the communication of this Order. The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundreds) only being compensation for mental agony and harassment including litigation cost.

                         The ex-parte order pronounced in the Open Forum on this day i.e. the 28th day of July, 2016 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.