BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 61 of 2016
Date of Institution: 09.02.2016
Date of Decision: 12.05.2016
Nb Sub (PA) Manoharan N, HQ 15 ARTY Bde, C/O 56 APO, Old Cantonment, Amritsar Cantt, Amritsar.
Complainant
Versus
- Intex Technologies (P) Limited, D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020.
- Perfect Mobile Repair Centre, Shop No. 19-20, Simran Plaza, Queens Road, Amritsar-143001 Punjab.
- M/s.Madaan Communications, Shop No. 11, Liberty Market, Railway Link Road, Amritsar, Punjab through its Principal Officers.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Minish Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: Exparte
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Nb Sub (PA) Manoharan N has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he purchased a Mobile Set of Intex Company from Opposite Party No.3 on 7.6.2014 for a sum of Rs.10,500/-, copy of bill is attached. After ten days, the Mobile Set in dispute gave problem in its screen and used to hang again and again. The complainant visited Opposite Party No.3 with complaint and Opposite Party No.3 directed the complainant to visit Opposite Party No.2 i.e Service Centre. The complainant accordingly visited Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre of the company with the complaint, who kept the Mobile Set in dispute with them for two days and after two days, Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre claimed that the Mobile Set in dispute is repaired and will work perfectly. But however, the Mobile Set in dispute again started giving same problems as before, meaning thereby the Opposite Party No.2 i.e.Authorised Service Centre failed to repair the Mobile Set in dispute. The complainant again visited Opposite Party No.2 i.e.Authorised Service Centre and they kept the Mobile Set in dispute for 10 days, but after ten days the problem was same. The complainant visited 5-7 times to Opposite Party No.2 i.e.Authorised Service Centre in November, 2014 in connection with problem in the Mobile Set in dispute. The complainant has retained the job sheets issued by Opposite Party No.2 i.e.Authorised Service Centre regarding his visits from 3.12.2014 up till June, 2015. The Mobile Set in dispute is not working at all at present and it is still lying with Opposite Party No.2 i.e.Authorised Service Centre since 15.6.2015 onwards. Due to the illegal and wrongful acts of the opposite parties, complainant has filed the instant complaint with a prayer to return the price of the Mobile Set in dispute and to fully compensate him for the financial loss and mental harassment. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, none put in appearance on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 for contesting the complaint despite due service, as such Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 were ordered to be proceeded against exparte.
3. In his bid to prove the case, ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence the affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, copy of bill dated 7.6.2014 Ex.C2, copy of service request dated 1.5.2015 Ex.C3, copy of job sheet dated 27.6.2015 Ex.C4, copy of service request dated 8.6.2015 Ex.C5, copy of service request dated 3.12.2014 Ex.C6, copy of service request dated 14.3.2015 Ex.C7 and closed the exparte evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. The oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the complainant in support of his case has gone unrebutted on record as Opposite Parties despite due service did not opt to appear and contest the complaint, which implies that Opposite Parties have impliedly admitted the claim of the complainant. We have gone through the documentary as well as oral evidence adduced by the complainant in support of his case. It transpires that the complainant has been regularly visiting the Opposite Party No.2 i.e.Authorised Service Centre of the Opposite Parties for getting the Mobile Set in dispute repaired since June, 2014. The complainant has adduced on record copy of service request dated 1.5.2015 Ex.C3, copy of job sheet dated 27.6.2015 Ex.C4, copy of service request dated 8.6.2015 Ex.C5, copy of service request dated 3.12.2014 Ex.C6 and copy of service request dated 14.3.2015 Ex.C7, which shows that Mobile Set in dispute was suffering from hanging problem after few days of the date of purchase . It is the case of the complainant that Mobile Set in dispute has been lying with Opposite Party No.2 i.e.Authorised Service Centre since 15.6.2015 onwards and the same has not been repaired so far. The very fact that Mobile Set in dispute has been lying with the Opposite Party No.2 i.e.Authorised Service Centre since 15.6.2015 shows that Mobile Set in dispute is suffering from some manufacturing problem which is beyond the scope of repair. In such a situation, the complainant is entitled for the refund of the value/ sale price of the Mobile Set in dispute, to the tune of Rs.10,500/-.
5. Consequently, instant complaint succeeds and the complainant is allowed to recover a sum of Rs.10,500/- i.e. sale price of the Mobile Set in dispute from the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. Opposite Party No.1 is manufacturer, Opposite Party No.2 is authorised service centre and Opposite Party No.3 is seller of the Mobile Set in dispute, so all the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are jointly, severally and co-extensively liable to pay the awarded amount and the complaint stands disposed of accordingly ex-parte. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order; failing which, awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of passing of order until full and final recovery. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 12.05.2016. (S.S.Panesar) President
(Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
hrg
