Lucknow District Commission Holds Karbonn, Its Service Centre, Seller Liable For Failure To Repair, Replace Defective Mobile Phone

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh) bench of Amarjeet Tripathi (President) and Pratibha Singh (Member) held 'Karbonn Mobile India', its Service Centre and its authorized Seller liable for deficiency in service for failing to repair or replace a defective mobile handset and instead returning an old, non-functional phone that did not belong to the Complainant. Brief Facts: Mr Dilip Kumar (“Complainant”) purchased a 'Karbonn model K-9' mobile phone from Gupta Digital Studio and Mobile Shop (“Seller”) by making a payment of Rs. 6,000/-. The phone stopped functioning within just 12 days of purchase. He then approached IQBar Global Service India (“Service Centre”) to get it repaired. His phone was taken by the Service Centre, and he was told to call later for an update. Despite repeated follow-ups, no information was provided. Eventually, when the Complainant personally visited the Service Centre, he was handed over an old, dead phone, which was not his. A complaint was also made on the Karbonn's toll-free number by the Complainant's son, but no action was taken. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Lucknow (“District Commission”) against Karbonn, the Seller and the Service Centre. In response, Karbonn claimed that the phone was repaired by the Service Centre and returned to the Complainant. It argued that the Complainant failed to submit any documentary evidence to prove a manufacturing defect. It further argued that the Complainant had mishandled the phone, which is not covered under the warranty, and this was communicated to him. The Seller and the Service Center didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings. Therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte. Observations by the District. Commission: The District Commission noted that within 17 days of the purchase of the phone, the Complainant began facing issues with the handset. Further, the Complainant promptly approached the Service Centre for repairs, as evident from the job sheet. It noted that instead of repairing the Complainant's mobile and returning it, the Service Centre handed over an old and non-functional phone that was not the Complainant's device. Further, it noted that the Complainant and his son made several follow-up attempts to resolve the issue, but no effective action was taken by the Service Centre or Karbonn. The District Commission noted that while Karbonn claimed that the damage to the phone was due to mishandling and not covered under warranty, it failed to submit any convincing or material evidence to demonstrate the nature of the alleged mishandling or to prove that the defect was not a manufacturing fault. It also observed that the Complainant successfully established through his affidavit and documentary evidence that the mobile became non-functional soon after purchase and was not repaired or replaced despite being under warranty. The phone handed over to him was neither his original device nor in working condition. The District Commission held that the act of delivering a defective or incorrect handset without explanation, and the failure to resolve the matter even after multiple communications, amounted to a clear deficiency in service on the part of the Karbonn, its Service Centre and the Seller. It was further held that the conduct of Karbonn, the Seller and the Service Centre caused mental agony to the Complainant, who had acted in good faith and within reasonable time. Consequently, the District Commission held Karbonn, its Service Centre and the Seller jointly and severally liable to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 6000/- towards the cost of the defective mobile handset, along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint until the date of actual payment. Further, they were directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2000/- towards litigation costs. In the event of failure to pay within the stipulated time, the District Commission held that the entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum thereafter. Case Title: Dilip Kumar vs Chairman/Director, M/s Karbonn Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Case Number: 687/2017 Date of Judgment: 01.04.2025 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Lucknow District Commission Holds Karbonn, Its Service Centre, Seller Liable For Failure To Repair, Replace Defective Mobile Phone

Smita Singh

Tags