DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.325 of 29-05-2014

Decided on 05-08-2014

Inderpal Singh, Advocate S/o Kartar Singh S/o Sewa Singh R/o Gali Durga Mandir Wali, Goniana Mandi, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Prince Telecom, Dealer of Mobile Phones, Connection, Recharge Coupons etc., Mall Road, Opposite Haryali Store, Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda.

2.Vintage Communication, Authorized Service Centre, 1st Floor, Shop No.12, Shakti Complex, Bathinda, through its Manager/Partner/Proprietor.

3.Karbonn Mobiles, # 39/13 off 7th Main, Hal 2nd Stage Appa Reddy Palya Indira Nagar, Banglore-560038, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.N.M Aggarwal, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Navpreet Singh Narula, counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3.

Opposite party No.1 ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile handset bearing model Titanium S-5 bearing IMEI1 No.911309350537174 and IMEI2 No.911309350537182 for Rs.12,000/- vide bill No.407 dated 25.4.2013 from the opposite party No.1, manufactured by the opposite party No.3 with one year warranty. At the time of selling of the abovesaid mobile handset the opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that in case, there would be any manufacturing defect, the manufacturing company would replace it with new one within the warranty period and in case, there would be some minor defect in it within the warranty period, it would be rectified free of cost. After 2-3 months of its purchase, the abovesaid mobile handset started giving the problem. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and requested it to rectify the defects in the abovesaid mobile handset. The opposite party No.2 after checking the abovesaid mobile handset kept the same with it for 2-3 days and delivered back the mobile handset in question to the complainant after its repair and assured him that there would be no problem in it in future and at that time no job sheet has been issued to the complainant by the opposite party No.2. The complainant again started using the abovesaid mobile handset, but again in the month of November-December, 2013, the mobile handset in question started giving the problems of white dots on display and yellow lines etc. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.2, its engineer/mechanic examined the abovesaid mobile handset and retained the same with it and prepared a job sheet, but he did not provide any copy of the job sheet to the complainant and asked him to collect his mobile handset after one week. The complainant number of times approached the opposite party No.2 and ultimately, on repeated requests made by him the mobile handset has been delivered to him after about one month by replacing its display with new one. On the insistence of the complainant, the opposite party No.2 further extended the warranty of one month of the abovesaid mobile handset. In the month of April, 2014 the abovesaid mobile handset again started giving the problem and complainant again approached the opposite party No.2, its engineer/mechanic examined the abovesaid mobile handset and prepared a job sheet bearing No.7078 dated 24.4.2014 and retained the mobile handset in question with it and asked the complainant to collect it after 4-5 days after the repair. After 4-5 days the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 and requested it to deliver his mobile handset, but the opposite party No.2 did not deliver him the mobile handset in question on the pretext that there is some manufacturing defect in it and it is required to be sent to the company for the replacement and asked him to come after 10-15 days by that time the mobile handset is expected to be received from the company. In the middle of May, 2014 the complainant again approached the office of the opposite party No.2 to collect his mobile handset, but till date the opposite party No.2 did not return him the mobile handset in question and has been postponing the matter on one or the other pretext. The opposite party No.2 has failed to rectify the defect in the abovesaid mobile handset or to get it replaced with new one from the opposite party No.3. Since 24.4.2014 the mobile handset in question is lying with the opposite party No.2. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties either to replace the mobile handset in question with new one or to refund him its price i.e. Rs.12,000/- alongwith cost and compensation or to give him any other additional, consequential or alternative relief for which he may be found entitled to.

2. Registered notice has been sent to the opposite party No.1 on dated 3.6.2014 vide postal receipt No.A RP371320902IN but despite receiving the summons, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.1 before this Forum, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against it.

3. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that they are ready and willing to repair the abovesaid mobile handset and the same is already lying repaired with the opposite party No.2, but the complainant refused to take the repaired mobile handset. The opposite parties issued a 'DO' and offered a new mobile handset to the complainant, but he refused to accept the same and declared that he is not interested and wanted to file the complaint. The defect in the abovesaid mobile handset has already been rectified, but there is lapse on the part of the complainant, as he has failed to collect the mobile handset in question.

4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. The mobile handset purchased by the complainant became defective after 2-3 months of its purchase. The complainant handed over the abovesaid mobile handset for repair to the opposite party No.2, it kept the same with it for 2-3 days and after repair the abovesaid mobile handset has been collected by the complainant and the opposite party No.2 assured him that there would be no problem in it in future, but no job sheet has been issued to him. In the month of November-December, 2013, the mobile handset in question again started giving the problems of white dots on display and yellow lines etc. The complainant took the abovesaid mobile handset for repair to the opposite party No.2, its engineer/mechanic examined the abovesaid mobile handset and retained the same with it and prepared a job sheet and asked him to collect his mobile handset after one week, but despite his repeated visits the opposite party No.2 has failed to deliver the mobile handset in question within one week, rather it has been delivered to him after about one month by replacing its display with new one. On asking of the complainant, the opposite party No.2 further extended one month warranty of the abovesaid mobile handset. In the month of April, 2014 the abovesaid mobile handset again started giving the problem and complainant again approached the opposite party No.2, its engineer/mechanic examined the abovesaid mobile handset and prepared a job sheet bearing No.7078 dated 24.4.2014 and retained the mobile handset in question with it and asked him to collect it after 4-5 days after the repair. After 4-5 days the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2, but it refused to handover him the mobile handset in question on the pretext that there is some manufacturing defect in it and it is required to be sent to the company for the replacement and asked him to come after 10-15 days by that time the mobile handset be received from the company. In the middle of May, 2014 the complainant again approached the office of the opposite party No.2 to collect his mobile handset, but till date the same is lying with the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 neither rectified the defect in the abovesaid mobile handset nor replaced it with new one. Since 24.4.2014 the mobile handset in question is lying with the opposite party No.2.

7. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the repaired mobile handset is lying with the opposite party No.2, but the complainant has refused to take its delivery. The opposite parties issued a 'DO' and offered a new mobile handset to the complainant, but he refused to accept the same. The defect in the abovesaid mobile in question has already been rectified.

8. A perusal of Bill No.407 dated 25.4.2013, Ex.C1, shows that one month extended warranty has been given by the service centre on the mobile handset in question. A perusal of job sheet dated 24.4.2014, Ex.C2, shows that there was problem relating to 'While dots on display, yellow line'. Except Ex.C2 the complainant has failed to place on file any other evidence to prove that his mobile handset has been creating the problems after 2-3 months of its purchase. However, the opposite party No.2 in its written statement as well in its affidavit has specifically mentioned that '…..the same is already lying repaired with the opposite party No.2, but the complainant refused to take the said mobile. Thereafter a DO was issued by the opposite parties and the complainant was offered new mobile, but he refused to accept the said mobile and declared that he is not interested in the mobile....'. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have admitted that there is some defect in the abovesaid mobile handset, moreover the same is evident from Ex.C2, which shows the problem in the mobile handset in question was relating to 'While dots on display, yellow line'. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 29.5.2014 i.e. more than one month from the date of issuance of the job sheet and opposite party Nos.2 and 3 never produced the repaired mobile handset in question before this Forum to prove that it has been working properly, rather before filing of this complaint the same is lying in the custody of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have submitted that the mobile handset in question has been repaired, but no evidence has been placed on file by them to prove their this version. Moreover at the same time the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have mentioned in their written statement as well as affidavit that they are ready to replace the mobile handset in question with new one, thus this proves that the abovesaid mobile handset is beyond repair that is the only reason that the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have offered the new mobile handset to the complainant.

9. Thus keeping in view the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file we are of the considered opinion that the mobile handset in question is beyond repair. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have offered the new mobile handset to the complainant. The mobile handset in question after rectification neither produced before this Forum nor delivered to the complainant, thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3.

10. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.1. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are directed to replace the mobile handset in question with new one with the same specification, model and brand with fresh warranty to the complainant. The mobile handset in question is already lying with the opposite party No.2 as such no direction can be given to the complainant in this regard.

11. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

05-08-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member