Karbonn, Service Centre, and Retailer Held Liable by Lucknow Consumer Commission for Failing to Repair Defective Mobile Phone
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Lucknow, comprising Amarjeet Tripathi (President) and Pratibha Singh (Member), held Karbonn Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., its authorized service centre, and the retail seller jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service after they failed to repair or replace a defective mobile phone and instead handed over a non-functional handset that did not belong to the complainant.
Brief Facts
The complainant, Dilip Kumar, purchased a Karbonn model K-9 mobile phone for ₹6,000 from Gupta Digital Studio and Mobile Shop, located in Kanchanpur, Matiyari, Chinhat, Lucknow. Within 12 days of purchase, the phone stopped working. He submitted the phone at IQBar Global Service India, the authorized Karbonn service centre, for repair.
Despite repeated attempts to contact the service centre, no update was provided. Later, when the complainant visited the centre in person, he was handed over an old, dead phone, which was not the one he had submitted. A complaint was also lodged on Karbonn’s toll-free number by the complainant’s son, but no action followed. Having received no response or resolution, the complainant filed a consumer complaint against Karbonn, the service centre, and the retailer.
Proceedings
The service centre and the seller did not appear before the District Commission despite service of notice and were thus proceeded against ex parte. Karbonn filed a written version, asserting that the handset was damaged due to mishandling by the complainant and that the damage was not covered under the terms of the warranty. It also claimed that the repaired handset had been returned to the complainant.
Observations of the District Commission
The Commission observed that:
The complainant had submitted the handset for repair within 17 days of purchase, as corroborated by the job sheet dated 12 January 2023.
The service centre, instead of repairing the device, handed over an old and defective handset that the complainant clearly identified as not belonging to him.
Karbonn’s claim that the mobile was mishandled was not supported by any technical report, inspection notes, or other material evidence to show that the fault did not lie in the manufacturing.
The affidavit and annexed documents filed by the complainant, including the purchase invoice, job sheet, and follow-up correspondence, sufficiently established that the mobile phone was under warranty and had become defective within a very short time after purchase.
The Commission noted that Karbonn and its service centre failed to provide any plausible explanation for returning a non-functional and incorrect handset to the complainant. It concluded that this act, along with the failure to take any corrective measure even after multiple follow-ups, constituted a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Final Directions
The District Commission held Karbonn Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., IQBar Global Service India (Service Centre), and Gupta Digital Studio and Mobile Shop (Seller) jointly and severally liable and passed the following directions:
Pay the complainant ₹6,000 towards the cost of the defective mobile handset, along with simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint filing (03.03.2023) until the actual date of payment.
Pay a further ₹5,000 as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience.
Pay ₹2,000 towards litigation costs.
The Commission also directed that if the total awarded amount is not paid within the prescribed time, then it shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum until final realization.
Cause Title: Dilip Kumar V. Chairman/Director, M/s Karbonn Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Case No: Complaint No. 687/2017
Coram: Shri. Amarjeet Tripati President], Prathibha Singh [Member]
[Read/Download order]
