Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/91/2015

Sukhchain Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

AKS Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

23 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	91/2015
Date of Institution	:	19.02.2015
Date of Decision	:	23.06.2015

 

                                                

                                               

Sukhchain Singh son of Sh.Tarsem Singh Sokhi r/o House No.2320, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.       AKS Telecom, Cabin No.5, 2^nd Floor, SCO No.1104-05, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory.

 

2.       Karbonn Mobiles, Corporate Office, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 through Director.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

                        Sh.N.S.Sidhu, Advocate for OP No.2.

                        OP No.1  exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile handset make Karbonn Titanium S9 (Pearl White) from Amazon via online vide Invoice date 24.02.2014 for Rs.10,890/-, Annexure C-1.  Soon after its purchase, the mobile handset started giving trouble and, therefore, he approached the service center i.e. OP No.1 for its repair who issued job-sheet No.KJASPPB-184614K4738 and told him to collect the same after few days. The complainant made online correspondence, Annexure C-2 with OP No.1.  It has further been averred that after 50 days, OP No.1 informed the complainant that the mobile handset in question was non-repairable as the motherboard was dead.  Vide Annexure C-3, OP No.1 further informed the complainant that the new mobile handset has already been dispatched to him by OP No.2.  According to the complainant, the changed mobile handset also started giving problem of touch panel. On 11.11.2014, he approached OP No.1 who informed him that the mobile handset was non-repairable and also issued DOA certificate, Annexure C-4 in this regard. It has further been averred that he approached OP No.1 to replace the mobile handset with a new one of the same quality and price but it failed to do so. Rather it was giving the mobile handset worth Rs.6,000/- instead of Rs.10,890/-, which he refused to accept the same. He requested OP No.1 to refund the price of the mobile phone, in question, but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           Despite due service through registered post, the Opposite Party No.1 failed to appear before this Forum to contest the case, hence it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.05.2015.
3.           In its written statement, OP No.2 stated that when the complainant approached the service center with the defective mobile handset, the same was replaced with a new one. It was further pleaded that on the second time the complainant was issued DOA certificate in respect of the mobile phone in question and he was further asked for the replacement of the same but he never approached it for its replacement till date and as such there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
4.           We have heard the complainant, in person, and have gone through the documents on record.
5.           The case of the complainant is that he was offered the mobile phone of the less amount and, therefore, he refused to accept the same and asked for refund of its price.
6.           On the other hand, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the complainant was requested for replacement of the mobile phone, in question, after its declaration as DOA but he did not approach it for the replacement of the same and straightway filed the present complaint on 19.02.2015 i.e. within a week. 
7.           It is proved from Annexure C-4 that the mobile phone in question was declared DOA on 13.02.2015. Since the Opposite Parties have already shown their willingness to replace the defective mobile phone of the complainant with a new one and, therefore, they should have been granted an opportunity to replace the mobile phone, in question, with a new one of the same model and make.         However, it is apt to mention here that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone, in question, after spending huge amount from his pocket but he could not properly use the same because it became completely defective/dead on two occasions. The very purpose of the purchase of the mobile phone has been defeated by the Opposite Parties and as such they are certainly liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him.
8.           In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the complaint partly with a direction to the Opposite Parties to replace the mobile phone in question with a new one of the same model & make with fresh warranty and to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,500/- to the complainant.
9.           This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall refund the price of the mobile handset in question i.e. Rs.10,890/- to the complainant alongwith compensation amount of Rs.3,500/- aforesaid.
10.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

23.06.2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER