Haryana

Ambala

CC/87/2015

Gaurav Rajpoot - Complainant(s)

Versus

Intex Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

In person.

01 Oct 2015

ORDER

                            BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM :

                                                                                   AMBALA  

                             Complaint Case No.           :         87 OF 2015

                             Date of Institution                :         30-03-2015

                             Date of Decision                  :         01.10.2015

 

Gaurav Rajpoot son of Shri Sunder lal at present resident of H.No. 2065/11, Moti Nagar,  Ambala City (Haryana).

:::::::Complainant.

                                                                                                Versus

1.                 Intex Mobile, Intex Technologies (India) Limited D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-110020 (India) through its authorized signatory.

2.                 Intex Mobile Care, Shop No.13/13, Idgah Road, Near   R.M.S. Co-op Bank, Ambala Cantt 133001 through its authorized signatory.

3.                 New Dashing Mobile Jalbera Road, Ambala City through its authorized signatory.

:::::::Opposite Parties.

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:              SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT

                             SH. PUSHPINDER KUMAR, MEMBER

Present:-             Complainant in person

                             OPs ex-parte.                  

       O R D E R

1. Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one Mobile set Intex Aqua 3G+ Black bearing IMEI No. 1:911416550530345 and IMEI No. 2:911416550530352  from OP no.3 vide bill No.604 dated 8/12/2014 costing Rs.3,350/- with a comprehensive warranty of 1 year. After one month of its purchase, the said mobile phone started creating troubles  like non functioning of camera &, hanging etc.  Thereafter complainant visited many times to OP no.3 for replacement of the above said mobile but OP no.3 advised the complainant to approach the OP No.2 for repair of the mobile set. As such the complainant approached OP No.2 who stated that you kept your phone here as we have understood the problem and we will repair all the defects i.e. charging, hanging and camera etc. and thus complainant deposited the mobile set with OP No.2 for the above defects and visited on next day to collect the mobile set but the problems of mobile set was not rectified.

                    In this way, OPs No.2 & 3 failed to rectify the hanging problem, charging problem & camera problem etc. of the complainant’s mobile set during the warranty period. Neither they replaced mobile set with new one nor they returned the price of the mobile set to the complainant resulting into financial, physical and mental harassment to the complainant. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

2.                Upon notice, all the OPs were duly served for 11-5-2015 through Regd. post. OP No. 3 has put in appearance whereas the remaining OPs  i.e. OP No.1 & 2 failed to appear before the forum inspite  of service of notice and as such they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11-5-2015.  OP No.3 also failed to file his reply as well as failed to appear on the  next date of hearing and thus he was also proceeded against ex-parte.

3.                To prove his version, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C -X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-3 and closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard the complainant and gone through the case file very carefully. The main grievance of the complainant  is  that  he purchased  the mobile set in question  on  8-12-2014 vide bill No.604 dated 8/12/2014 costing Rs.3,350/- with a comprehensive warranty of 1 year and after sometime, the mobile  phone started creating  problems of charging , hanging & camera etc., but the said problems could not be rectified by the OPs despite many visits to the service centre of the OP company which is admittedly a deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. The complainant  has further relied upon the case law reported in 2008(1) CLT Page 15 rendered by Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as Soni Erricson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal and 2007 (1) CLT Page 614 passed by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in case titled Head Marketing and Communication, Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor and other   wherein it is held that inspite of repair of mobile set, it did not work and thus observed that the handset was having inherent defects and refund of cost of mobile was ordered.

5.                After hearing the complainant and going through the record, it is crystal clear from document Annexure C-1 that the mobile set in question was sold by OP No.3 to the complainant on 8-12-2014. It is also not disputed that the mobile set is having a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase meaning thereby that the Ops were bound to rectify the defects of the mobile set during the period of warranty but they failed to rectify the defects of hanging, charging & camera etc. as contended by the complainant. Whereas on the other hand, the contention of complaint remained unrebutted as OPs did not bother to contest the matter despite their service and thus we have no option except to believe the version of the complainant.

                   So, from the above discussed facts, we have come to the conclusion that mobile set sold to the complainant by the OPs was having inherent defect from its very beginning and the same could not be rectified by the OPs despite various visits of the complainant to their service centre at Ambala. Hence, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by OPs. Accordingly we accept the complaint and direct the OPs  No.1 & 2 to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of order:-

                (i)         to pay Rs.3,350/- cost of the mobile set to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its purchase i.e. 8-12-2014 to till  its  realization.

               (ii)         to pay  Rs. 2000/- as  compensation  for  harassment and mental pain.

             (iii)           also to pay Rs.1100/- as cost of litigation.

Further the order/ directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within a stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further fetch simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. A copy of this order be sent to all the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in open court: 01.10.2015                                           Sd/-

                                                                                            ( A.K.SARDANA)

                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

                                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                 ( PUSHPINDER KUMAR )

                                                                                                       MEMBER