Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 650.
Instituted on : 15.11.2017.
Decided on : 07.01.2019.
Ramesh Chander s/o Sh. Tek Ram H.No.252/04, Rajender Nagar, Gali No.1, near Dalal Bhawan, Rohtak, Age 55, Mob.9355618054.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Hariom Mobile Gohana Road Near Dalal Bhawan Rohtak.
- Intex Technologies India Ltd. c/o Shri Krishna Enterprises SCO 189 1ST Floor HUDA Complex, Rohtak.
- Intex Technologies (I) Ltd., A 61, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, Delhi-110020, through its director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT.SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Raj Kumar Dahiya Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Ravi Kant Kaushik Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 & 3 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile Intex Aqua Power HD(Blue) 4G mobile vide IMEI No.911528400480826 for a sum of Rs.7200/- from the opposite party no.1 vide bill no.374 dated 11.04.2017. That in the month of September 2017 the above-said mobile phone started creating problems of display, phone hang issue sometimes. The complainant approached to respondent No.2 on dated 16.09.2017 and deposited his mobile phone for repairing and the same was returned to complainant after 1 month 20 days of its repairing. But again the mobile set creating problem and its LCD screen started flickering due to which complainant is unable to see anything on the screen. That complainant approached the service centre for repairing the above said mobile but they flatly refused to repair the mobile. That the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to refund the cost of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to OP No.2 received back duly served and notice issued to OP No.3 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. As such opposite party No.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.01.2018 of this Forum. Opposite party No.1 filed its reply and has submitted that answering opposite party is only retailer of the alleged mobile phone not the manufacturer so no liability of any kind can be fastened upon the answering respondent. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile on 11.04.2017 and as per job sheet placed on record Ex.C1, dated 16.09.2017 there was problem of display which was repaired by the OP and the mobile was returned to complainant after 1 month 20 days but again the mobile phone started creating problem and the service centre/opposite party no.2 refused to repair the same whereas the mobile was within warranty period which shows deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is also on record that OP No.2 & 3 i.e. manufacturer and service centre did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding defect in the mobile set stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and they are liable to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 20% depreciation on it as the mobile has been used by the complainant uninterruptedly for 5 months.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 20% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.5760/-(Rupees five thousand seven hundred sixty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 15.11.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the OP No.2 or 3 at the time of payment by the OP No.3.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
07.01.2019.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member
