DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. CC 254 of 24.6.2016

                                      Decided on:                      28.12.2016

Pushvinder Singh @ Khushwinder Singh son of Tarsem Singh resident of Sarain Patti Chowk, Telephone Colony, Samana, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Intex Mobile Company, Authorized Service Centre, Sunny Telecom, Main Road, Opp: OBC Bank,Samana, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala through its Proprietor.
2. Intex Mobile, Head Office D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 through its General Manager.
3. Gill Electronics, Shivaji Market, Samana, Tehsil Samana,District Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                                       

ARGUED BY:

                                       Sh.B.K.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for

                                          complainant.

                                       Opposite party ex-parte.                                    

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA, MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one Intex Mobile set Aqua i5 HD Dual SIM having IMEI No.(i)911376601146634(ii) 91137601146642 from OP No.3 for an amount of Rs.9200/- vide invoice No.4305 dated 11.5.2015. It is averred that after some time some problem cropped up in the said mobile phone i.e. it was not operating any app.even no new app could be down loaded. As such the complainant approached OP no.3who told him to contact OP no.1, the same being the authorized service centre of the company. Accordingly, the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.1 on 13.10.2015, who after inspecting the mobile phone, told the complainant to come after 5-7 days as the mobile phone was to be sent to the company. After one week, OP no.1 returned the mobile phone to the complainant but when the complainant  tried to operate the same, he found that it was not functioning properly. Again he deposited the mobile phone in question with OP no.1 on 21.10.2015 and OP no.1 again returned the mobile phone after a few days with the assurance that from now onwards it would function properly. But after some days, the mobile phone again started giving the same problem alongwith camera problem and the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.1 on24.11.2015.OP no.1 gave the assurance that it was a minor problem and OP no.2 would solve it and after a few days OP no.3 returned the mobile phone to the complainant. But after a few days the mobile phone started giving problem alongwith certain other new problems i.e. auto switch on and off, hanging problem, touch problem and finally the complainant again deposited the mobile phone with OP no.1 on 1.4.2016 and till the date of the filing of the present complaint, the problem in the mobile phone could not be solved. As a result, the complainant underwent a lot of harassment and the OPs did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. On 23.5.2016, the complainant also got served a legal notice to the OPs but to no use. Ultimately he approached this Forum  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act).
2. On notice, OPs failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against exparte.
3. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C1 to C11 and his counsel closed the evidence.
4. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the evidence on record.
5. Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice dated 11.5.2015 whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone for an amount of Rs.9200/-.Ex.C2  to Ex.C4 are the copies of the legal notice.Ex.C8 to Ex.C11 are the job sheets dated 13.10.2015, 21.10.2015,24.11.2015 and 1.4.2016. In the first two job sheets the problem in the mobile phone is same and in the other two job sheets, some new problems are mentioned. Inspite of rectifying the mobile phone again and again, the problem could not be solved and the complainant was dragged into forced litigation.
6. In the present case, the problem is occurring in the mobile phone again and again. Since 1.4.2016, the mobile has been lying with OP no.1 who has neither rectified the defect nor retuned it to the complainant, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as the defect occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OPs No.1&2 to replace the mobile phone with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.9200/-, the same being the price of the mobile phone.OPs no.1&2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.2000/-as costs of litigation. Order be complied by the OPs no.1&2 within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order.
108605146108.  

DATED:28.12.2016                                                                          

                                                                                               NEENA SANDHU

                                                                                  PRESIDENT

                                                                             NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                                    MEMBER