Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President
On 18-4-2013, the complainant had purchased a mobile handset make Karbon from OP2 vide bill number 277 dated 18.4.2013 for
Page 1. Order CC 263/13
Rs. 4800/-. The handset was warranteed for a period of one year. However, after about four months of its purchase the touch screen of the handset started giving problem. The handset also used to suffer from the problem of hanging. The complainant approached the Ops for its repairs. The Ops refused to repair the handset . This despite an e-mail dated 30.8.2013 and a notice dated 31.8.2013. Hence, the complaint.
The complaint has been contested by OP1 who has filed a written statement. Paras1 , 2 and 3 of the preliminary objections to the written statement are reproduced as under:
- The answering respondent strongly opposes all the contents which are raised by the complainant in the present complaint here was no legal ground to file present complaint against answering respondent. The answering respondent company provides the warranty under the normal use and service i.e. (a) one year for mobile phone devices and (b) six months for batteries, charger and accessories. It is important to mention here that the complaint had been purchased the said mobile on 10/4/2013, at that said mobile was working and complainant was checked prior to purchase of said mobile handset. It became faulty on dated 12.9.2013. Therefore it is
Page 2. Order CC 263/13
- clear that there was no any manufacturing defects in disputed mobile handset.
- The answering respondent strongly opposes all the contents which are raised by the complainant in the present complaint. The present complaint is filed by complainant regarding the defect of Karbonn A-2 with allegations that answering respondents fails to provide the service. It is totally wrong to say that he came first time in service centerfor repairing the mobile on dated 12.9.2013 and Opposite party take long time for repair the mobile. As per record of the OPP. Party complainant never approach the service center regarding the repairing of said defective mobile handset. There is no record found in company as stated by the complainant in his complaint regarding refused to do the service of defective handset. Complainant is also fails to provide and proof by which he can proof that he went to service center and service center denied to do the service center. Therefore it’s clear that the present complaint is based on false and fabricated story against the answering respondents.
Page 3. Order CC 263/13
- That the answering respondent respectfully submit that it has not so far received any notice/ legal notice from the complainant for the present complaint and not liable to pay anything as claimed in the complaint from the conduct and material placed on record, modus operandi of the complainant to create false consumer case and harass the answering respondent is ample clear. It is submitted that the aegis of Consumer Protection law is meant for the genuine consumers and this Hon’ble Forum has to identify the abusers of the process of law. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs setting example for others to refrain from abusing the process of law.
OP has reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on its part and that the complaint is devoid of all merits. It has prayed that the complaint be dismissed. We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record. The complainant has filed his own affidavit dated 19.9.2014 wherein he has corroborated the contents of the complaint. Annexure 1 is the original invoice for Rs 4800/- which shows the purchase of the Karbon Mobile Handset on 18.4.2013. Annexure 2 is a note appended by the customer care service of the OP refusing to give service in respect of the handset in question. This is dated
Page 4. Order CC 263/13
12/9/2013 which gives a lie to the defense taken by the OP that the handset was not brought to them on 12.9.2013. Annexure 3 is an e-mail dated 30.8.2013 whereas annexure 4 is a notice dated 31.8.2013 which the complainant had addressed to the OP. despite this , the OP had failed to give due service to the complainant. This was a clear case of deficiency on the part of the Ops. We, therefore, direct OP1 as under:
1.Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs4800/- along with interest @ 10% p.a.from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 8.10.2013 till payment.
2.Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs10,000/- as compensation for pain and agony which will also include the cost of litigation.
The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. IF the OP fail to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
