BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 203 of 14.03.2016. Date of Decision: 14.06.2016.
Chander Shakher Chopra @ C.S. Chopra, S/o. L. Sh. Ashok Kumar Chopra, 194, M.I.G., Phase-1, U.E., Dugri, Ludhiana.
..… Complainant
Versus
- Intex Mobile Service Centre, Saiji Telecom, Shop No.4, Pearl Palace, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana-141001 (through its Manager/Owner/Authorized signatory)
- Intex Technologies Corporate Office Address:
Intex Technologies (P) Ltd., D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020, India-Tel: 41610224/26 (Through its Authorized Manager/Representative)
…..Opposite parties
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM:
SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
MS. BABITA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Complainant with counsel Sh. Daljeet Singh, Advocate.
For OPs : Exparte.
ORDER
PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT
1. Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) filed by complainant by claiming that he purchased Intex mobile Aqua Speed having serial No.91143790069163 from Shree Karni Mobile House on 03.04.2015 for Rs.7,800/- vide invoice No.1875. Thereafter technical fault occurred in the mobile phone because the same was not charging properly. The complainant took the mobile to authorized service centre i.e. OP1. Manager of service centre issued job sheet dated 19.10.2015 by assuring the complainant that mobile set will be properly repaired and in future there will be no problem of charging. Thereafter they informed the complainant telephonically that set is in order and complainant can collect the same. At this assurance, complainant got back mobile set by reposing faith in service centre. However, same problem again started and complainant took the mobile set to service centre of OPs and this time job sheet dated 09.12.2015 was issued. After removing the defect, complainant was called upon to collect the mobile set and he collected the same on assurance that same problem will not occur again. Again same trouble surfaced due to which complainant facing difficulty in day to day activities. Non performance of the mobile set and non removal of the technical defect alleged to be deficiency in service and as such complainant issued legal notice through registered post on 11.01.2016, which was duly received by Ops. Reply to that legal notice not sent and that is why the complaint filed for directions to Ops to pay the costs of mobile hand set namely Rs.7,800/-. Rs.5,000/- as expenses of legal notice, but Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment claimed.
2. Notice of the complaint issued to Ops, but they did not appear and by drawing presumption of due service after lapse of 30 days period, Ops were proceeded against exparte.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW1/A along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C5 and then complainant closed exparte evidence.
4. Written arguments not submitted, but only oral arguments heard and record gone through carefully.
5. Copy of invoice bill Ex. C1 produced to show as if complainant purchased mobile hand set from Shree Karni Mobile House on 03.04.2015 for consideration of Rs.7,800/-. Even if said Shree Karni Mobile House not impleaded as party, but despite that complaint against Ops maintainable because it is endorsed on the foot of invoice bill Ex. C1 itself that warranty will be provided by company after contacting the nearest service centre. Mobile in question is Intex Aqua Speed and as such, same virtually is manufactured by OP2. So in view of warranty clause endorsed on Ex. C1, liability of removing the defects will remain of OP1 as service centre and of OP2 as manufacturer.
6. Job sheets Ex. C2 and Ex. C3 of dates 09.12.2015 and 19.10.2015 are produced on record to show as if mobile set was taken to service centre i.e. shop of OP1 because the battery was not charging or that the battery was bad. Endorsement in this respect incorporated in Ex. C2 and Ex. C3 and as such, certainly the case of complainant believable that due to improper charging or bad battery, complainant remained unable to use the mobile set properly. Battery warranty is for six months, but set warranty is of one year as per endorsement on Ex. C1. Both in Ex. C2 and Ex. C3, it is mentioned as if mobile set deposited in warranty period and as such, the defects in mobile set surfaced during warranty period. Owing to this, liability of OP1 and 2 to rectify the defects is there, but those have not been removed and as such, complainant virtually has been harassed and as such, he is entitled to compensation for mental harassment and mental pain. Keeping in view the facts that cost of mobile set is Rs.7,800/- and the fact that the complainant could have purchased a new mobile set even, it is fit and appropriate to award compensation for mental harassment of Rs.2,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- because the legal notice Ex. C4 has been served by complainant himself being an advocate. Complainant is entitled for repair of the mobile set in question only because on Ex. C1 itself it has been mentioned that in case of any defect, mobile will only be repaired and will not be replaced under any circumstances. Complainant being an educated person definitely would have gone through terms of warranty as endorsed on Ex. C1 at the time of purchase and as such, this Forum cannot grant relief beyond terms and conditions of agreement arrived at between the parties through invoice/bill Ex. C1.
7. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed exparte in terms that Ops will remove the defect in the mobile set by repairing the same as per norms. However, Ops required to pay compensation for mental harassment of Rs.2,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.1,500/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Complainant will present the mobile set in question with OP1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, OP1 after removing the defect will return the mobile set in question to complainant within 15 days of receipt of the mobile set. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Babita) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:14.06.2016.
Gobind Ram.
