BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.275 of 2014

Date of Instt. 13.08.2014

Date of Decision :23.02.2015

Sandeep Kumar son of Satish Kumar R/o 37, Street No.11, Shaheed Babu Labh Singh Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Jaina Marketing & Associates(Registered office-Authorized Importer of Karbonn Mobile Phone in India), D/170, Okhla Industrial Area-1, New Delhi-110020, through its Managing Director/ Director/ General Manager/Manager/Authorized Representative.

2. M/s Harsehaj Communication, Karbonn Authorized Service Centre, 2nd Floor, Aristocrat Market, New Vijay Nagar, Near Roto Auto, T.V.Centre Road, Jalandhar, through its Proprietor/Partner/ Manager/Authorized Representative.

3. M/s Mobile Plaza, Shop No.25, Shiv Market, Gur Mandi, Ludhiana, through its Managing Director/Director/Manager/ Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.KK Gupta Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2.

Opposite party No.3 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that on 3.8.2013 the complainant purchased a Karbonn Mobile phone bearing model No.S-II, bearing IMEI/ESN1 No.911311400456843 and IMEI/ESN2 No.911311400507843 from the opposite party No.3 and paid Rs.9000/- vide invoice No.660 dated 3.8.2013. The said product is covered with a warranty of one year. After few months, the complainant found that the above said mobile phone is not working properly and causing problems related to Wi-Fi and network signal, then the complainant complained the matter to the opposite party No.2, after the preliminary checking of the mobile phone employee/engineer of the opposite party No.2 found that it is not working properly and causing problems related to Wi-Fi and network signal, then engineer of the opposite party No.2 informed the complainant that the same is not properly repairable but he can try to rectify the same. In that event mobile phone was taken into custody by the engineer/employee of the opposite party No.2 and a service job sheet bearing No.KJASPPB170414K6444 dated 22.4.2014 was issued to the complainant. As per the assurance made by the employee of the opposite party No.2, the complainant visited his office and demanded his mobile phone back but the engineer/employee of the opposite party No.2 informed the complainant that his cell phone was sent to the head office for rectification and till date he has not received the same. After that employee/engineer requested the complainant to visit again after few days. After few days when the complainant again visited the premises of the opposite party No.2 and again demanded his cell phone back the employee of the opposite party No.2 started delaying the matter on the one pretext or the other and till date the costly mobile phone of the complainant is in illegal custody of the opposite party No.2. All the opposite parties knowingly and vexatiously harassed the complainant. The opposite parties No.1 & 3 have supplied faulty mobile phone to the complainant knowing fully well that the mobile phone was having inherent manufacturing defects. The mobile phone of the complainant was handed over to the opposite party No.2 within warranty period and till date it is in custody of the opposite party No.2. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile handset i.e Rs.9000/- to him. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, want of cause of action, non disclosure of full facts etc. They further pleaded that as per the information and record available with the opposite parties, the complainant purchased his handset on 3.8.2013 and from that date the handset was working properly and there was no fault in the handset but the complainant in order to harass and pressurize the opposite parties firstly visited the office of opposite party No.2 on 22.4.2014 and at that time there was problem of network in the mobile phone and the opposite party No.2 booked the handset of the complainant vide job sheet No.KJASPPB1704146K6444 and told to come after 3/4 days and the opposite party No.2 repaired the handset of the complainant but the complainant never turned back to receive his handset and when the executive of opposite party no.2 called the complainant to receive the handset then the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.2 but refused to receive the handset and told to change the handset as the same model was not the running model then the executive told to made the request in the head office and wait for 10 to 15 days and after the approval from the head office the opposite party No.2 again called the complainant to receive the swapped upgraded model i.e Titanium S-5 Plus and when the complainant visited the office he told that he wants the handset of worth Rs.15,000/- and when the opposite party No.2 refused, then the complainant threatened the opposite party no.2 that if the opposite parties will not give the handset of worth Rs.15,000/- then the complainant will file the consumer complaint before the consumer court. They denied the other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite party No.3 did not appear inspite of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and evidence of opposite parties No.1 and 2 closed by order.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2.

7. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.3 vide retail invoice dated 3.8.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.9000/-. According to the complainant after few months the mobile mobile developed problems relating to Wi-Fi and network signal and he reported the matter to opposite party No.2 i.e service centre of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 booked the handset vide service job sheet dated 22.4.2014. According to the complainant, the opposite party No.2 failed to rectify the defect inspite of repeated visits and told him that the mobile handset has been sent to head office for rectification of the defects. According to the opposite parties No.1 and 2, opposite party No.2 repaired the handset of the complainant but he never turned back to receive the handset. Further according to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 when executive of opposite party No.2 called the complainant to receive the handset, he refused to receive the handset and told to change the same but same model was not running model and after approval from the head office the opposite party No.2 called the complainant and told him to receive the swapped upgraded model i.e Titanium S-5 Plus but he refused him to receive the same. The very fact that opposite parties No.1 and 2 offered swapped handset allegedly upgraded model tends to prove that mobile handset of the complainant was beyond repair. It is also in the written reply of opposite parties No.1 and 2 that the same model of the handset was not running model. Since the model of mobile handset in question is not running model, as such it is a fit case where opposite parties No.1 and 2 should be directed to refund the price of the handset to the complainant. The old handset is still in the custody of opposite party No.2. This fact is not disputed.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.1 and 2 are directed to refund the price of the mobile handset i.e Rs.9000/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.2000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

23.02.2015 Member President