Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/15/1958

Samuel S - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor Karboon Service Cenre B.S. Enterprise - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

23 Apr 2016

ORDER

Complaint Filed on:05.12.2015

Disposed On:23.04.2016

                                                                              

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 

23^rd DAY OF APRIL 2016

 

PRESENT:-	SRI. P.V SINGRI	PRESIDENT
	SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA	MEMBER
	SMT. P.K SHANTHA	MEMBER

                          

COMPLAINT No.1958/2015

 

 

COMPLAINANT	Sri.Samuel. S S/o Sargunam S, #38/A, 7th Cross, 4th Main, Chandramouleshwara Layout, Hunasamaranahalli, Bangalore-572157.     V/s
OPPOSITE PARTY	The Proprietor, Karbonn Service Center, B.S Enterprises, #7, SLN Building, Ayyappa Temple Road, Jalahalli Circle, T Dasarahalli, Bangalore-560057.   Advocate – Smt.G.Jayashree Ravindra

 

O R D E R

 

SMT. SHANTHA P.K, MEMBER

 

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to hand over the mobile in good condition or refund the amount which he spent going to the OPs office and also compensation.

 

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

 

The complainant purchased Karbonn Titanium Hexa (IMEI No.911350500109282) mobile phone through Flipkart on 11.09.2014 by paying Rs.12,999/-.  But after couple of months, it was not working properly.  The complainant came to the OP Karbonn Service Center office on 17.06.2015 and handed over the mobile phone to the Karbonn service centre, located nearby Jalahalli cross.  The OP said that the complainant would get it repaired and give the mobile phone in three days.  Complainant visited the service centre every week, OP did not return the complainant phone but saying every time that the complainant would get his phone next week.  But complainant did not get his mobile phone and he was disappointed with their service. 

 

The defect in the mobile could not be resolved by the OP.  The complainant sent a letter to OP through courier on 20.10.2015 to return his mobile in good condition.  After receiving the complainant’s courier the OP called the complainant and told him that they would hand over the mobile phone very soon.  But till today the OP did not hand over the mobile in good condition to the complainant.  Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 

 

For the aforesaid reasons, complainant prays for directing OP to hand over the mobile phone in good condition or refund the amount which he spent going to the OPs office and also compensation.

 

3. In response to the notice issued, OP entered their appearance through their advocate however failed to file their version despite sufficient time and opportunity given.  Thereafter, the complainant was called upon to file his affidavit evidence.  Accordingly, the complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit in lieu of oral evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  Heard the arguments advanced by the complainant.

 

4. Perused the averments made in the complaint, affidavit filed in lieu of oral evidence and documents filed by the complainant.

 

5. Admittedly the complainant purchased a mobile handset Karbonn Titanium Hexa on 11.09.2014 through Flipkart by paying a sum of Rs.12,999/-.  Within the warranty period the said mobile was not working properly.  So after noticing the problems/defects he handed over the said handset to Karbonn Service Centre i.e., OP on 17.06.2015.  Document to that effect is produced.  After having taken the mobile phone, till today OP has not returned the Karbonn mobile phone after attending the repairs, despite several requests made by the complainant.  Complainant visited service centre of OP several times but OP did not respond.

 

6. Due to the negligent acts of OP, the complainant is unable to use the mobile phone.  Even the complainant has issued a letter/notice to the OP on 20.10.2015 to return his mobile in good condition but there was no reply from the OP.  It is pertinent to note here that despite retaining the handset with them for a long time OP failed to repair the handset.  The handset in question had defects which the OP failed to rectify.  The material placed on record by the complainant also goes to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.

 

7. The complainant having paid a sum of Rs.12,999/- for purchasing the said handset is unable to use and enjoy the same even within the warranty period.  The defect in the handset could not be resolved in the authorized service centre.  Therefore, it is evident that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP.  The problem with the handset occurred during the warranty period.  The OP has also failed to provide satisfactory service to the complainant in attending the defects occurred in the said handset.  The complainant could not make use of the handset even for 8-9 months.  The complainant was unable to make use of the handset and this must have put him to great hardship and inconvenience.  Certainly he must have suffered mental agony because of the non performance of the handset within a short time after its purchase. 

 

8. Though OP appeared through their advocate but failed to contest the complaint by filing their version.  For the reasons best known to them, the OP has failed to contest the complaint, denying the allegations made against them.  We don’t find any reasons to disbelieve the allegations made in the complaint as well as the sworn testimony of the complainant.  The evidence led-in by the complainant stands unchallenged.

 

9. The very fact of OP not contesting the proceedings leads us to draw an inference that OP is admitting the claim of the complainant.  We are satisfied that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service against the OP.  Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that OP is liable to return the complainant’s mobile phone in a good condition or else refund the price of the phone along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following:

         

              

       O R D E R

 

 

The complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is allowed in part.  OP is directed to return the mobile to the complainant in a good condition or else pay a sum of Rs.12,999/- to the complainant.  Further OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service, inconvenience and hardship caused along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

 

OP shall comply the order passed by this Forum within a month from today.

 

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

              

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 23^rd day of April 2016)

 

 

 

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Vln* 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMPLAINT No.1958/2015

                 

Complainant                 -        Sri.Samuel. S               

Bangalore-572157.

                                          -vs-

 

Opposite Party              -        The Proprietor,

Karbonn Service Center,

Bangalore-560057.

 

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 23.03.2016.

 

1. Sri.Samuel. S

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT
1)	Document No.1 is copy of retail/tax invoice/bill dated 11.09.2014.
2)	Document No.2 is the copy of courier receipt dated 22.10.2015.
3)	Document No.3 is the copy cash/credit bill of OP dated 17.06.2015.
4)	Document No.4 is the copy of letter of complainant issued to OP dated 20.10.2015.

 

 

 

   Witnesses examined on behalf of OP – Nil.

 

   Documents produced by the OP - Nil

 

 

MEMBER                           MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Vln*