DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 242 of 15.10.2015
Decided on: 19.10.2016
Vikas Sood son of Darshan Kumar Sood, resident of House No.224, Ward No.11, Khalsa Colony, Sanaur, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
- VardhmanTele Marketing, SCO-75, Sector 12A, Opp. Telephone Exchange, Gurgaon, Haryana, through its Prop./Manager.
- M/s Karbon Mobile Ltd. corporate office D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.
- Singla Communication, SCO-65, New Leela Bhawan, Patiala, authorized Service Centre of party no.2 through its Prop./partner(Mobile No.8054180146)
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Vikas Sood, complainant in person.
Defence of OP no.2 struck of vide order
dated 10.2.2016.
Sh.Rahul Kamboj,Adv. counsel for OP no.3.
ORDER
SMT. NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
The complainant purchased one new Karbon Octane Titanium Plus mobile Phone from OP no.1 through Online having IMEI No.911352900233886 vide invoice No.BE37CF/14-15/89010 dated 4.10.2014 for an amount of Rs.11,990/-.It is averred that after a few months of the said purchase, the mobile phone started giving the problem of automatically on/off during working and also started giving some problems i.e. when the complainant used to insert the sim card, the mobile phone failed to identify the sim card, apart from this, it usually remained hang out during working and further software applications of the said mobile phone also did not work properly. As such the complainant approached the authorized service centre of the company i.e. OP no.3 and deposited the mobile phone with OP no.3 on 1.9.2015. OP no.3 kept the mobile phone with it, issued the job card and told the complainant to collect his mobile phone after 4-5 days. The complainant contacted OP no.3 after 4-5 days but OP no.3 told the complainant that the defect in the mobile phone could not be rectified as there was some technical defect and now it will handover the mobile phone to OP no.2 and further told the complainant to collect the mobile phone after one week.
2. It is further averred that the complainant approached OP no.3 time and again but OP no.3 kept on lingering the matter and ultimately it gave one toll free Number 18001024660 to the complainant and told him to contact OP no.2 on this number. The complainant made various phone calls to OP no.2 and also contacted OP no.3, but to no use. This failure on the part of OP no.3 to rectify the defect in the mobile phone amounted to deficiency in service on its part. Ultimately, the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (for short the O.Ps.)
3. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against Ops no.2&3 only. Counsel for OP no.2 appeared but failed to file power of attorney and written version despite availing four opportunities. Ultimately its defence was struck off vide order dated 18.1.2016. Counsel for OP no.3 appeared and filed its written version. It is an admitted fact that the mobile phone in question was purchased by the complainant from OP no.1 and as there occurred some problem in the said mobile phone, the complainant approached OP no.3 on 1.9.2015 and OP no.3 issued a job card to the complainant and also told him to collect the mobile phone after 4-5 days. As the defect in the mobile phone could not be removed, OP no.3 sent the said mobile phone to OP no.2 for the rectification of the problem.Further on 17.11.2015, OP no.3 had sent a registered letter to the complainant at his given address, intimating the complainant to collect his mobile phone but the said letter was received back by OP no.3 undelivered. As such no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of OP no.3 and it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit Ex.CA, alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C2 and closed his evidence.
5. Whereas on behalf of OP no.3, its counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Proprietor of OP no3 alongwith documents Exs.OP1&OP2 and closed the evidence
6. The parties failed to file written arguments. We have heard the complainant in person, counsel for OP no.3 and have gone through the evidence on record.
7. Ex.C1 is the copy of invoice, whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from OP no.1 on 24.10.2014.Ex.C3 is the copy of job sheet whereby the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.3 on 1.9.2015. Since 1.9.2015, OP no.3 has neither rectified the problem in the mobile phone nor returned the said mobile phone to the complainant.The only plea taken up by OP no.3 is that the defect in the mobile phone was rectified but the complainant did not come to collect the same from OP no.3. When the complainant did not come to collect the mobile phone, OP no.3 sent a registered letter to the complainant but the registered letter returned back undelivered. OP no.3 has not placed on record any evidence to show that thereafter he ever tried to contact the complainant in order to intimate him to collect the mobile phone. OP no.3 has not handed over the mobile phone in question to the complainant for a period of more than one year. These days mobile phone is the basic necessity and OP no.3 deprived the complainant from the use of the same for long period of more than one year, which amounted to deficiency in service on its part.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to Ops No.2&3 to refund the amount of Rs.11,990/- , the same being the price of the mobile phone to the complainant. OPs No.2&3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation or the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith Rs.3000/- as costs of litigation. The order be complied by the Ops within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
Pronounced.
Dated:19.10.2016
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
