| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.444 of 05-08-2016 Decided on 14-06-2017 Harpal Singh S/o Harbansh Singh S/o Najar Singh R/o Village Gidder, District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Global Mobile Zone Opposite Pal Tent House, Main Bazaar, Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda, through its Proprietor. 2.Head Office of Karbonn Mobiles, # 39/13, Off 7th Main, Hal 2nd Stage, Indira Nagar, Bangalore, Pin Code-560038. 3.Smart Services Authorized Service Centre of Karbonn Mobile, Ajit Road Near Kalra Hospital, St.No.5, First Floor, Bathinda. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.B.L Sachdeva, Advocate. For opposite party No.1: Sh.R.R Khattar, Advocate. For opposite party Nos.2 & 3: Sh.N.S Narula, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Harpal Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Global Mobile Zone and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Karbonn Titanium S-310 mobile handset for Rs.5500/- from opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.2 on 29.2.2016 with one year warranty. It is alleged that the complainant could not use the mobile handset as it started giving problems of range of network, application automatic downloading and low visibility etc. He brought this fact to the notice of opposite party No.1, it retained the mobile handset in question for repair and asked complainant to collect his mobile handset after 2-3 days. Thereafter opposite party No.1 handed over the mobile handset to the complainant with the assurance that it has been repaired. After that the mobile handset did not work properly. On the suggestion of opposite party No.1 given on 28.6.2016, the complainant approached the authorized service centre i.e. opposite party No.3 and handed over it the mobile handset against job sheet. It is further alleged that on 4.8.2016, the complainant approached opposite party No.3, it demanded Rs.1800/- and flatly refused to deliver him the mobile handset. The mobile handset is lying with opposite party No.3 till date. On this backdrops of fact, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prayed for directions to opposite parties either to replace the mobile handset with new one or in alternative to refund of its price alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for mental tension and harassment etc. and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/-. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing their written version. In its separate written version, opposite party No.1 has raised the legal objections that this complaint is not maintainable against it. The warranty, if any, has been given by the manufacturer or its company and not by opposite party No.1. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against opposite party No.1. The intricate questions of law and facts are involved in this complaint, which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination. It is not possible in the summary procedure under 'Act'. The appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the civil court. The complainant has concealed the material facts and documents from this Forum and opposite parties. He is not 'consumer' of opposite party No.1. He has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file this complaint. On merits, opposite party No.1 has denied all other averments of the complainant and reiterated its stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above. In their joint written version, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have also raised the legal objections that the complainant has no cause-of-action or locus-standi to file this complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos.2 and 3. They have never refused to repair the mobile handset. As per terms and conditions of the warranty, the mobile handset is repaired and it is lying repaired with the service centre, but the complainant has not come to take its delivery. The company gives one year guarantee on the mobile handsets and six months for battery, charger and accessories. As per conditions of the guarantee/warranty, only required repair is to be done and defect is to be removed from the mobile handset. The defect in the battery has occurred after 6 months i.e. beyond guarantee period. As such, the battery was changed on payment basis. The mobile handset of the complainant has been destroyed due to his own negligence and carelessness and it cannot be repaired as during the guarantee period, the complainant handed over the mobile handset to some other untrained mechanic, who destroyed its part. The complaint is totally false and without any basis. On merits also, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have reiterated their stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above. In the end, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have prayed for dismissal of compalint. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavits dated 5.8.2016 and 23.12.2016, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C3); bill, (Ex.C2) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Pritpal Singh Sharma dated 13.9.2016, (Ex.OP1/1) and closed the evidence. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Kapil Kumar dated 20.4.2017, (Ex.OP2/1) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. The complainant has purchased the mobile handset in question for Rs.5500/-. The bill, (Ex.C2) proves this fact. The complainant has alleged defects in his mobile handset. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have produced on record affidavit of one Kapil Kumar, (Ex.OP2/1). He has deposed in his affidavit that the mobile handset has been duly repaired, but the complainant has not turn up to collect his mobile handset. There is no notice to prove that the complainant was ever intimated by opposite party Nos.2 and 3 to collect his mobile handset, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2500/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and dismissed qua opposite party No.1. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are directed to handover the mobile handset in question to the complainant after its repair as per terms and conditions of warranty. It is further made clear that original warranty/guarantee shall stand extended for the remaining period from the date of delivery of mobile handset to the complainant, i.e after excluding period from 28.6.2016 till date of delivery. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 14-06-2017 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
