| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.197 of 28-05-2015 Decided on 08-02-2016 Anoop Kumar @ Anoop Lal aged about 33 years S/o Raghunath, Office Address. Computer Lab DAV College, Bibi Wala Road, District Bathinda, State-Punjab & Residence address # 22027, St. No.10/A/1, Power House Road, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.K.K International, Jaipur, E-250, Road No.13, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Sikar Road, City-Jaipur, State Rajasthan-302013, through its Managing Director. 2.Smart Service, First Floor, St.No.5, Ajit Road Near Kalra Hospital, Bathinda, through its Incharge. 3.Carboon Mobile/United Telelinks (Bangalore) Ltd. No.39/13, Appareddypaly Main Road, Hal 2nd Stage, Indranagar, Bangalore-560038, India. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Naveen Kumar, Advocate. For opposite party No.1: Complaint against opposite party No.1 already dismissed. For opposite party Nos.2 and 3: Sh.N.S Narula, Advocate. ORDER M. P. Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Anoop Kumar @ Anoop Lal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties K.K International and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite party No.3 is manufacturer-cum-importer of Karbonn Titanium Octance Plus Blue. He booked one Karbonn Titanium Octance Plus Blue mobile handset for Rs.10,740/- and he was issued invoice No.SA678B/14-15/5311 dated 30.1.2015. Opposite party No.3 gave one year warranty on this mobile handset and assured him that its battery back up is for 12 hours. It is alleged that after one month from the date of purchase, the mobile handset stopped working, as there was problem of heating, hang and battery back up. The complainant contacted customer care on its No.080-40894888 and reported about the defect, it asked him to contact with service care centre at Bathinda. Accordingly, he approached opposite party No.2, its official checked the mobile handset and kept the same with it and issued him job sheet on 24.2.2015. Opposite party No.2 gave the old mobile handset to him for the purpose of use. After few days, old mobile handset created a lot of problems. He returned the mobile handset to opposite party No.2. He again approached opposite party No.2, but his mobile handset was not repaired and it was disclosed that it is not curable as there is manufacturing defect in it. It is further alleged that the complainant many times requested opposite parties either to repair the mobile handset or replace it with new one or to refund its price i.e. Rs.10,740/-, but to no effect.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and claimed for refund of Rs.10,740/- i.e. price of mobile handset and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, botheration and harassment etc. and Rs.6500/- as cost of litigation. Hence, this complaint. In view of statement suffered by the counsel of the complainant on dated 24.9.2015, complaint against opposite party No.1 was dismissed as withdrawn. Notice was issued to opposite party Nos.2 and 3, but previously none appeared on their behalf. Hence, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them. Complainant was afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his version, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit dated 20.10.2015, (Ex.C1); photocopy of retail invoice, (Ex.C2); photocopy of job sheet, (Ex.C3); photocopy of warranty, (Ex.C4) and photocopy of cardbox one side, (Ex.C5). At the time of arguments, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 appeared through their counsel Sh.N.S Narula, Advocate. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for complainant reiterated his version as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the mobile handset is with opposite party No.2 since 24.2.2015 and opposite party No.2 has failed to repair it. This fact itself proves that there is manufacturing defect in it. Although, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 offered swap mobile handset to the complainant, but it was also having similar problem. No purpose will be served even by replacement of mobile handset. Therefore, the complainant should be awarded refund of its price alongwith compensation and cost of litigation. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the complainant himself has placed on record terms and conditions of warranty. As per these conditions, the warranty is to the effect that this mobile handset is free from defects in workmanship and material under normal use. The warranty is to repair, which includes replacement of parts etc. There is nothing to show that the complainant is entitled for refund of the price of mobile handset. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have already offered swap mobile handset, which is free from defects, but the complainant is not coming forward to accept it. Even, if opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have not filed any written version, but the complainant has failed to prove his entitlement for refund of price of mobile handset. As such, he is not entitled for refund of price of mobile handset or other compensation as claimed by him. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. Admittedly, the complainant purchased one mobile handset, manufactured by opposite party No.3. It is not disputed that the mobile handset is with opposite party No.2 being authorized service centre of opposite party No.3. It is also not the case of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 that the mobile handset has been duly repaired. Of-course, the complainant has prayed for refund of price, but as per terms and conditions relied upon by complainant, (Ex.C4), his case is not made out to justify his prayer for refund of price of mobile handset. The mobile handset is in the possession of opposite party No.2 since 24.2.2015. Initially, opposite party No.2 provided standby mobile handset. It was also returned to opposite party No.2 on 24.2.2015. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are directed to handover the mobile handset in question to the complainant after proper repair as per terms and conditions of warranty within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are not able to repair the mobile handset in question, then they will replace the mobile handset with new mobile handset of same model and specifications or same M.R.P within 30 days. In case, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are unable to repair/replace the mobile handset as ordered above, then thereafter they are liable to refund him its price i.e. Rs.10,740/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum till realization. It is further made clear that in case of repair also, original warranty/guarantee shall stand extended for the time taken from 24.2.2015 till date of delivery of mobile handset to the complainant. 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. Pronounced in open Forum:- 08-02-2016 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
