Order no. 2& dated 18.4.2017

                    The complainant's case germen in the petition can be depicted as herein under -

                   The complainant purchased mobile hand set Karbonn Tytanium S2 Plus from the Reliance

                    Digital Store, Chinsurah on 2nd October, 2014 at the price of Rs.5,389/- . After some days the

hand set began to give battery problem. The complainant submitted the same to the company's

Service centre at Serampur on 22th November. After 15 days the phone was given to the

complainant but the same started giving trouble. It is further case of the complainant that

complainant faced new problem created due to the negligence of the Service centre. So, the

mobile phone was deposited on 22th December, 2014 . The complainant was told that here

hand set was sent to Head office in New Delhi, but the complainant did not get the phone back

from the Service centre. It is also case of the petitioner that she was suffered for her inability

to make connection with her husband within a period of 100 days. Accordingly, the case have

been filed with prayer as laid down in the complaint.

The OP no.2 appeared and filed WV denying all material .allegations made by the

complainant against it. Op no.2 admits that complainant purchased the goods i.e. said hand set

with one warrantee but not guarantee. Hence, the company is duty bound to provide free

service within one year of the said hand set if any problem would arise within the stipulated

period of one year. But the clever complainant intended to purchase the another hand set by

replacing the same mala fidely file this complaint to squeeze money from him. It is admitted by

the oP nO.2 that complainant came in the month of December, 2014 just after using the said

hand set for more than two months and then she demanded hifi technology camera and

application in that said hand set. It is contended that the complainant intended to manage a

new hand set of 4G supported mobile by replacing the old which was not permitted by their

rule. It is also admitted that Op nO.2 took the mobile set on 22.12.2014 and sent the same

through proper challan nO.I13128 dated 29.12.2014. It is also stated by the oP no.2 that the

head office returned the said article without any defect vide challan nO.DL016SF74259 dated

1.4.2015. Accordingly, it is stated that there is no deficiency in service and to that effect OP

nO.2filed Annexure 1 and 2.

Op no.I filed WV stating in para 7 and 9 that it is the duty of the particular company to

render after sale service whose brand purchased by any customer from their store. It is also

categorically stated by Op no.i that service liability is always lying with the particular company.

The Op no.I admitted that complainant purchased the alleged mobile from their shop. Op no.l

also admitted regarding guarantee and liabilities of the producer company. Op no.I also stated

in para 15 that "if there is any service deficiency it is only lying with the company whose

brand purchased by the complainant",

The complainant has filed Xerox copy of Karbon Customer receipt {2} Xerox copy of

email sent by Karbonn mobiles to the complainant {3}Xerox copy of one undated letter

addressed to Karbonn Customer Care. OP nO.2 has filed Xerox copy of Annexure I and Annexure

II.

Both the petitioners as well as Op no. 1 and 2 filed Written argument, Affidavit in chief

and Interrogatories.

POINT OF DECISION

I} Whether there in any deficiency in service on the part of Op no.I and 2 ?

2} Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS:

From the documents stated hereinbefore and argument advanced by both sides it is

admitted position that the complainant purchased one mobile phone for her use but due to

some mechanical defect complainant was unable to use the mobile phone and she took the

same to the Op no.2 but Op no.2 after removing the defect back the same to the complainant.

But the mobile phone was not in good condition so complainant deposited the same to Op no.2

and Op no.2 sent the same to the manufacturer. Annexure I and II filed by the Op nO.2 supports

this contention. But Op nO.2 inspite of being informed by the manufacturer did not take

appropriate measure for redressing the grievances of the complainant and. did not take

appropriate for returning the same to the complainant. Record also show the Opno.l and 2 are

absolutely reluctant to the grievances of the consumer. It is expected that retailer or service

centre and the manufacturer company shall take specific measurement' to .redress the

grievances of the consumer. It is pertinent to note that mobile phone and its uses are becoming

so rampant and becomes a inevitable electronic machinery in our life from morning to night.

Even the Govt. of India has adopted very tough step to use such machine in wide direction,

particularly giving information and cash less transaction. The Op no.I and 2 have got sufficient

time to alleviate the sufferings of the complainant but record does not reflect that Op no1. And

Op no 2. Have taken effective steps to help this consumer, like the complainant. At present

time such company or retail seller or service centre should more and more vigilant regarding

quick service to the consumer keeping in mind the quality of good service and selling of goods

quality instrument.

After a deep deliberation on the material in the record it is crystal clear that Op no.1 and

2 were sleeping ignoring the grievances of the complainant who is devoid of any knowledge

regarding electrical substance and software mechanism. It is pertinent to mention that the

mobile phone is still in possession of the OP nO.2. $0, the material on record convinced this

forum that complainant has succeeded to prove her case and she is entitled adequate remedy

as per law. Hence-

Ordered

That the case of the complainant be and the same is allowed on contest.

Complainant is entitled to get price of the mobile set and compensationas prayed by

him.

The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 12,000/- (Karbonn phone Rs.5389/- + mental and

other harassments).

The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.5,OOO/-as litigation cost.

The OP nO.1 and Op nO.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount to the

complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which 9% interest will accrue

from the date of filing of this case till realization.

Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.