BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

07^th DAY OF AUGUST 2015

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OP) for an order directing the OPs to replace his defective mobile with another fresh new set or pay him back Rs.5,005/- being the value of the handset and for compensation and costs.

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

The complainant is a pensioner getting a pension of Rs.922/- per month.  The complainant purchased a KARBONN MOBILE handset from the shop of OP-1 Sangeetha Mobile Pvt. Ltd-Branch 366, Mattadha Halli, R.T Nagar Post, Bangalore for a sum of Rs.5,005/-.  Unfortunately, the set was not working properly and would stop functioning frequently and the display was very poor and the volume of the set was reduced gradually.  The complainant went to OP-1 and got it repaired thrice the handset did not work satisfactorily.  The OP-1 asked the complainant to approach Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., stating that they would take care of the problem faced by him.  Accordingly, the complainant approached the Insurance Company and he received a message telling that the mother board of the handset has to be changed and he has to pay approximately a sum of Rs.3,000/-.  The complainant is at shock to learn that the mobile set purchased by him has major problem and he has to pay an additional amount of Rs.3,000/- for getting it repaired.

Then the complainant sent his original receipt to the Onsite Electro Services Pvt. Ltd., (pick & drop services) Regional Office situated at 50/2370 Vijaydeep CHS, Gandhi Nagar, Opp. MIG Club, Bandra East Mumbai.  The problem faced by his handset was never solved.  The complainant also did not get back his original receipt.  Therefore, he was compelled to approach this Forum seeking a direction to the OP either to replace the defective handset with a new handset or pay him back Rs.5,005/- being value of the handset and a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- together with cost of Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses.

3. The OP-1 Sangeetha Mobile Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore appeared through its advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under.

The OP-1 is a Private Limited Company dealing in sales of various kinds of mobile handsets of various manufacturers through its network of more than 300 outlets situated across Karnataka and other States having its head office at Bangalore and one of its outlet is situated at 366, Mattadha Halli, R.T Nagar post, Bangalore.  The complainant purchased A-25+ mobile handset of M/s.Karbonn mobiles make i.e., OP-2 bearing IMEI No.911308403986321 on 13.06.2014.  This OP is only a facilitator and is permitted to sell mobile sets without opening the seal of the container boxes.  This OP-1 is also selling the various mobile sets manufactured by M/s.Karbonn Mobiles.  The said M/s.Karbonn Mobiles are alone responsible for all the manufacturing defects arising out of the mobile set which is clearly mentioned in their manual book as well as in the invoice issued to the complainant at the time of the sale of the said mobile handset.

This OP took all due care of the complainant after sale of the said handset.  Though it is not liable to receive the handset for repairs of the manufacturing defects but at the request of the complainant they collected the handset and got it repaired not once but thrice from the authorized service center of M/s.Karbonn mobiles.  This OP is not aware as to what happened thereafter since the complainant did not return to them thereafter.  The complainant was advised to go to authorized service center in the event of any manufacturing defects arising in the handset.  OP-2 being a manufacturer is responsible for any manufacturing defects in the handset and the complainant is to approach OP-2 for the relief and not this OP.  This OP does not have any service center and it is merely a dealer.  The manufacturer of the said set alone is liable to attend to the repairs of manufacturing defects in the handset.  This OP has been unnecessarily made party to this proceedings since it is not at all liable to necessary any of the manufacturing defects in the handset purchased by the complainant.  There is no any deficiency of service on the part of this OP.

For the aforesaid reasons, OP-1 prays for dismissal of the complaint as against them.      

          4. Despite service of notice, OPs.2 & 3 remained absent and have been placed ex-parte.

          5. Thereafter the complainant to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint filed his affidavit by way of evidence.  OP-1 has also filed the affidavit of their authorized representative by name Vijay Singh S/o V.K Singh.  Both the complainant as well as OP-1 filed their written arguments.

          6. As already stated above, OPs.2 & 3 being the manufacturers of the handset in question failed to appear and contest the claim of the complainant.

7. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        8. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, affidavit filed in lieu of oral evidence, documents filed along with the complaint also perused the averments made in the version filed by OP-1, the sworn testimony of authorized representative of OP-1 and other materials placed on record.

9. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

10. (Point Nos.1 & 2) It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased the mobile handset A-25+ manufactured by OP-2 for a total sum of Rs.5,005/- from the retail outlet of OP-1 on 15.06.2014.  It could be made out from the averments made in the complaint and the affidavit evidence filed by the complainant that few days after the purchase the handset developed serious problems which later came to be known as manufacturing defects.  Though the complainant was to approach the authorized service center or the manufacturer of the said handset, approached OP-1 with a request to get the handset repaired.  OP-1 though not liable to attend to any repairs entertained the request of the complainant as a special case and got the handset repaired on 3 occasions but could not resolve the defects in the handset.  It appears that OP-1 advised the complainant to approach the authorized service center of OP-2.

11. However, it is not clear from the pleadings of the complainant as to whether he approached the authorized service center or the insurance company with whom the handset was insured.  The complainant claims that he sent the original receipt to one ONSITE ELECTRO SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI.  The complainant does not specifically state anywhere either in his complaint or in his affidavit as to whom he handed over the mobile set for repairs after it was returned to him by OP-1.  However, it is apparent that the manufacturing defect in the handset was not resolved and the problems with the handset persisted.

12. Admittedly the handset is covered with one year warranty.  The dealer, who is OP-1 in this case has provided one more year of extended warranty as could be seen from the copy of the invoice produced by the complainant.  The handset has been purchased on 15.06.2014 and within very short time i.e., within a month or so the handset started malfunctioning due to certain manufacturing defects.  Despite repairs on 3 occasions, the defect in the handset could not be resolved.  OP-1 was though not liable to get the handset repaired but as a good will gesture helped the complainant by collecting the handset in question and getting it repaired through the authorized service center of OP-2.  Thus there is no any deficiency of service as far as OP-1 is concerned.  However, OPs.2 & 3 who are the manufacturers of the said handset have failed in their obligation to get the said handset repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant.  As averred in the complaint even today the problem in the said handset persists and the complainant is unable to make use of the same.  The complainant having paid a sum of Rs.5,005/- for purchasing the said handset he is unable to use and enjoy the same even within the warranty period.  The manufacturing defect in the handset could not be resolved despite repairs on 3 occasions in the authorized service center.  Therefore, it is evident that there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs.2 & 3.  The OPs.2 & 3 alone are responsible for replacing the said handset with a new handset or return the price of the handset to the complainant.

13. Due to the manufacturing defect in the handset, the complainant could not make use of the handset even for 2-3 months since the handset was never repaired satisfactorily.  The complainant was unable to make use of the handset and this has been 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.  The OPs.2 & 3 did not appear and contest the claim of the complainant.  We do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.  OP-1 in their version admitted that the said handset had manufacturing defects and the same could not be set right despite repairing it thrice.  Therefore, we are of the considered view that the complaint filed by the complainant deserves to be allowed in the following manger in the interest of justice.      

  O R D E R

The complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is allowed in part.  OPs.2 & 3 are hereby directed to replace the mobile handset in question with a new similar handset or return Rs.5,005/- to the complainant being the value of the said handset.  Further OPs.2 & 3 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service on their part together with costs of Rs.1,000/-.

OPs.2 & 3 shall comply the order passed by this Forum within a month from today.

The complaint as against OP-1 is dismissed.

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 07^th day of August 2015)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*