DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.188 of 04-03-2014

Decided on 16-05-2014

Karan Singh aged about 30 years S/o Manmohan Singh R/o 2/82, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Barnala Road, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Shiv Bhole Telecom, Street No.6, Opposite Imperial Motors, Nai Basti, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner.

2.Vintage Communication, Authorized Service Centre, 1st Floor, Shakti Complex, Above Linovo Showroom, Opposite Gole Diggi, Bathinda, through its Manager/Partner/Proprietor.

3.Karbonn Mobiles # 39/13, off 7th Main, Hal 2nd Stage Appareddy Palya, Indiranagar, Bangalore-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.Vikas Singla, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Opposite parties ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. This 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'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased one mobile handset model Titanium S5 bearing IMEI No.911309350164714 and 913309350164722 for Rs.12,500/- vide bill No.5265 on dated 14.4.2013 from the opposite party No.1, manufactured by the opposite party No.3 for his personal use with one year warranty/guarantee. At the time of selling of the abovesaid mobile handset the opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that in case, any defect occurs in it within the warranty period, the same would be rectified free of cost and in case, the defect cannot be rectified, it would be replaced with new one immediately. After about 3-4 months from the date of purchase of the abovesaid mobile handset, it started giving problems as sometimes it switch off automatically and then restarts automatically and sometimes there remained problem with regard to auto lock and after locking the same automatically, it was/is difficult to unlock. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1, it asked him to approach the opposite party No.2, the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.3. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2, it after checking the abovesaid mobile handset, rectified it and delivered it to the complainant with the assurance that there would be no problem in it in future, but the opposite party No.2 did not issue him any job sheet. After sometimes, the abovesaid mobile handset again started giving the same problems and accordingly, in the month of December, 2013, the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 and complained regarding the abovesaid problems in the mobile handset in question, its mechanic/engineer retained the abovesaid mobile handset and issued him a job sheet No.KJASPPB1241213K5184 dated 23.12.2013, which was too issued on the protest of the complainant and asked him to come to its shop after 3-4 days to collect his mobile handset. Thereafter the complainant many times approached the opposite party No.2 to collect his mobile handset, but till date the opposite parties have not returned him the abovesaid mobile handset and everytime, they lingered on the matter on one or the other pretext. The complainant also requested the opposite party No.2 to replace the abovesaid mobile handset with new one on the pretext that it being the authorized service centre has failed to rectify the defect in it within the stipulated period, but to no effect. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant 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 its price i.e. Rs.12,500/- alongwith interest, cost and compensation or to give him any other additional, consequential or alternative relief for which he may be found entitled to.

2. Notice by hand/dasti has been sent to the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. The opposite party No.1 has received the notice on dated 20.3.2014 and the opposite party No.2 on dated 25.3.2014 and registered notice has been sent to the opposite party No.3 on dated 20.3.2014 vide postal receipt No.A CP107157907IN, but despite receiving the summons, none appeared on behalf of any opposite parties before this Forum, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against all the opposite parties.

3. The complainant has led ex-parte evidence to support his allegations. He has produced Ex.C1:-Photocopy of bill; Ex.C2:-Photocopy of customer receipt: Ex.C3:-Photocopies of e-mails; Ex.C4, his own affidavit dated 3.3.2014 and Ex.C5, his own affidavit dated 9.5.2014.

4. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel of the complainant heard at length. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the learned counsel of the complainant perused.

5. The submission of the complainant is that after the purchase of the abovesaid mobile handset, it started giving the problems as sometimes it switch off automatically and then restarts automatically and sometimes there remained problem with regard to auto lock and after locking the same automatically, it was/is difficult to unlock. The complainant complained the opposite party No.2 regarding this, it after checking the abovesaid mobile handset, rectified it and delivered it to the complainant, but again the problems occurred in it after sometime of its use. In the month of December, 2013, the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 with the above mentioned problems in the mobile handset in question, its mechanic/engineer retained the abovesaid mobile handset with it and issued him a job sheet No.KJASPPB1241213K5184 dated 23.12.2013 and asked him to come to its shop after 3-4 days to collect his mobile handset. Thereafter the complainant many times approached the opposite party No.2 to collect his mobile handset, but the opposite parties have not returned him the abovesaid mobile handset till date.

6. A perusal of job sheet dated 23.12.2013, Ex.C2 shows that 'Voice of customer:-Touch Panel Falty/VOC27 and Warranty Status:-UW'. Ex.C3 is an e-mail sent by info@karbonnmobiles.com;support@jainaindia.com; RE:-Karbonn S5 phone issue//45 days passed with no solution till date//KJASPPB1241213K5184, in reply to the said e-mail of the complainant, Customer Support Karbonn Mobiles has specifically mentioned that:-

'With reference to your mail, we would like to inform you that we have already forwarded your handset complaint to the concerned department on the priority basis, we will resolve the issue as soon. Kindly bear with us till then'.

Further in reply to the e-mail of the complainant, the opposite party No.3 has specifically mentioned in its e-mail dated 30.12.2013; 6:27 PM that:-

'With reference to your complaint, we would like to inform you that the complaint is under process in Delhi HO. We will get back to you with the exact status as early as possible'.

In reply to the e-mail of the complainant, the opposite party No.3 has specifically mentioned in its e-mail dated 11.2.2014; 2:50 PM that:-

'With reference to your mail, we would like to inform you that the complaint is still under process and we are in continuously follow up with the concerned department.

We will get back to you with the resolution as early as possible'.

Moreover in reply to the e-mail of the complainant, the opposite party No.3 has also specifically mentioned in its e-mail dated 12.2.2014; 12:21 PM that:-

'With reference to your mail, we would like to inform you that the complaint is under process with the concerned department and it would require 10 to 15 days more. Kindly bear with us till then'.

Thus from the above correspondence done with the opposite party No.3 by the complainant it is proved that the mobile handset in question is beyond repair and the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have not repaired it and have not sent it to the complainant and have been postponing the matter time and again. Moreover the non-appearance of the opposite parties itself proves that they were well aware of the fact that the mobile handset in question was not working properly and they being unable to repair it, have not sent it to the complainant. Since 23.12.2013, the abovesaid mobile handset is lying with the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 neither repaired the abovesaid mobile handset nor returned it to the complainant.

7. Thus from the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Hence 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 refund the amount of Rs.12,500/- (As per Ex.C1) 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.

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

9. In case of non-compliance within the stipulated period, the interest @ 9% per annum will yield on the amount of Rs.12,500/- till realization.

10. 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:- (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

16-05-2014 President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member