DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001

                                                                                                                        Consumer Complaint No: 505 of 2015                                                                                                                                                                 Date of Institution: 29.09.2015                                                                                                                                                                         Date of Decision: 10.02.2016.

Bodh Raj s/o Sh. Keshar Lal, R/o 374/16, Nai Basti, Gurgaon (Haryana).

                                                                                        ……Complainant.

                                                Versus

Garg Enterprises, 21, Shivaji Nagar, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Proprietor.

M/s Intex, Sach Collection Point, 1G4 Hotel, Devi Place, Opp. Raj Cinema,  Old Delhi Road, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Manager.

                                                                              ..Opposite parties

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

BEFORE:     SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

                   SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.

Present:        Shri Bodh Raj, complainant in person.

                     Sh. Naresh Garg, Proprietor of OP-1

                    Shri Vinay Kumar, Adv for OP-2 (though exparte)

ORDER       JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased a mobile phone “INTEX AQUA POWER HO” from the OP-1 for a sum of Rs.9800/- vide invoice No.1180 dated 30.03.2015. The above said handset became defective just after 2/3 months from the date of its purchase and  complainant went to the OP-2 on 25.08.2015 vide Service Request but the defect could not be rectified. The above said handset was again deposited with the OP-2 on 02.09.2015 vide Service Request dated 02.09.2015 but this time also the opposite party failed to rectify the defect and the problem could not be rectified and thus, the opposite party has supplied a defective mobile set to the complainant. The opposite parties are deficient in providing services to the complainant. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to replace the defective mobile and also to pay Rs.15,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.

2                 OP-1 in its written reply has alleged that he has sold the mobile in question to the complainant vide Bill No.1180 dated 30.03.2015 and the manufacturing company is responsible for any defect in the mobile phone, if any and the manufacturing company as well as service centre of the company shall be responsible for any warranty or guarantee and thus, the complaint against the OP-1 may be dismissed.

3                 Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party No.2. However, opposite party No.2 initially appeared but later on failed to appear before this Forum and thus, was proceeded exparte vide order dated 14.12.2015.   However, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 (though exparte) has appeared and made a statement to the effect that they are ready to replace the mobile phone of the complainant of the same model.

4                 The complainant in his evidence has placed on file Retail Invoice No.1180 dated 30.03.2015 (Ex.C-1) and job cards dated 25.08.2009 and 02.09.2015.

5                 We have heard the parties and have perused the record available on file.

6                 Therefore, after going through the facts and  circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it is evident that the complainant has purchased the mobile phone in question from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.9800/- vide Invoice No.1180 dated 30.03.2015 Ex. C-1. However, the above said phone became defective and was taken to the service centre on 25.08.2015 and 02.09.2015 but the opposite party No.2 failed to rectify the defect though the phone was within warranty. The OP-2 has also made a statement that they are ready to replace the phone of the complainant with new one.

7                 Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we direct opposite party No.2 to replace the mobile phone of the complainant with new one of the same model or upgraded model  with fresh one on deposit of old defective mobile phone with the OP-2. The complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.3,000/-. The opposite party No.2 shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

                             (Surender Singh Balyan)           (Jyoti Siwach)

                                   Member                                   Member

                             10.02.2016                                10.02.2016