Haryana

Panchkula

CC/63/2015

S.P SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARBONN MOBILE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

05 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                                     

Consumer Complaint No	:	63 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	31.03.2015
Date of Decision	:	05.10.2015

S.P. Singh, Type II, QRT No. 27B, CRPF Camp Group Centre, Pinjore, Haryana, 134102.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. The Managing Director, Karbonn Mobile India Private Limited, S-57, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048.
2. The Manager, Jagdamba Music Place & Mobile Centre, Mahendergarh-123029, Haryana.
3. The Manager, Smart Mobile, Shop No. LG-6, Devi Place, Opposite Raj Cinema, Old Delhi Road, Gurgaon.
4. The Manager, Ranvir Mobile Solution, 462, Opposite Gurudwara, Panchkula-134113, Chandigarh.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr. S.P. Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     None for complainant.

Mr. Ankush Gupta, Adv., for the OP no. 1.

Ops. No. 2 to 4 are already ex-parte.

         

             

ORDER

(Dharampal,  President)

 

1. Briefly stated that the complainant purchased a Carbon Titanium S5 vide IMEI No.911309353346532 & 911309353346540 for an amount of Rs.10,300/- from OP No. 2 on 16.09.2013. In the month of April, 2014, the mobile phone started giving problem in touch pad, low ringing voice, proximity sensor failure and used to hang sometimes. The complainant submitted the phone at Gurgaon service center i.e. Op No.3 who returned the phone to the complainant after two days without repair and asked the complainant to send the mobile to OP No.1. On 19.04.2014, the complainant submitted the phone to the service center of OP No.4 at Panchkula who refused to repair the same on the ground that the mobile has been opened from outside and PCB was burned. The complainant again took the mobile phone to the OP No.3 who refused to repair it on the ground that it was not in a repairable condition as the handset has been got opened from outside.  The complainant contacted the customer care of OP No.1 but to no avail. On 01.10.2014, the Op No.1 informed the complainant to send handset’s IMEI or job sheet details so that they could refer the matter to their service team and provide the solution. On 14.10.2014, the complainant requested the Ops through letter that either repair the phone or replace it with a new phone of the same price but to no avail. This act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Hence this complaint.
2. OP No.1 has appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the mobile phone of the complainant was already got opened from outside unauthorized service center and condition of mother board was not repairable as mother board of the handset was totally burnt which was not repairable in warranty condition as per limitation of warranty coverage. It is submitted that the warranty card was issued to the customer on purchasing of new mobile set. It is submitted that the Op No.1 is manufacturing company of the mobile phone. It is denied that Op No.1 is authorized dealer of OP No.2 at Panchkula.
3. Notice was issued to Ops No.2 to 4 through registered post and the same has not been received served or unserved.  None has appeared on behalf of the Ops No. 2 to 4.  It is deemed to be served.  Hence Ops No. 2 to 4 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 08.05.2015.
4. On 12.06.2015, the case was fixed for filing evidence of the parties but the complainant has not appeared and not tendered his evidence and the case was adjourned to 22.06.2015 & 17.07.2015 for filing evidence of the parties including last opportunity. Again on 17.07.2015, the complainant has not appeared and the evidence of the complainant was closed by court order vide order dated 17.07.2015. Thereafter, on 10.08.2015, when the case was fixed for arguments, the complainant appeared and on the request of the complainant, the case was adjourned to 14.08.2015 but thereafter, the complainant has not appeared.
5. The counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure OP1/A alongwith documents Annexure R1/1 & R1/2 and closed the evidence.
6. Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant was not appearing before this Forum since 12.06.2015 but on the other hand, the OP No.1 kept on appearing to join the proceedings before this Forum. Since the provisions of CP Act are benolvent in nature therefore, we are disposing of the complaint in question on merits instead of dismissing in default. 
7. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the OP No.1 and have given our conscious thought to the pleas raised during the course of hearing in their relatability to the pleadings made by the counsel for the OP No.1 herein. We are of the distilled view that the complainant deserves to be non-suited and we proceed to give the reasoning in support of our view hereunder.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the OP No.1 and going through the documents available on the case file which were attached by the complainant alongwith the complaint and evidence of the OP No.1. The complainant in his complaint has mentioned that he has purchased a Carbon Titanium S5 handset from the Op No.2 for an amount of Rs.10,300/-. From the perusal of the bill (Mark A), it reveals that the mobile was purchased by Sh.Aruw Bhai and not by the complainant. We are of the considered opinion that the complainant is not a “consumer” of the services of the opposite parties within meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. Hence, in view of above discussed factual as well as legal position, we are of the considered view that the complainant is not a consumer. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

05.10.2015    S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR      DHARAM PAL

                      MEMBER           MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          

                                                     DHARAM PAL 

                                                     MEMBER