Delhi

East Delhi

CC/827/2015

MUZIM BASHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

INTEX TECH. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 827/15

 

Shri Muzir Basha

R/o East Arjun Nagar

Delhi                                                                                                ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Orange Tel

A-147, Vikas Marg

Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Globe Connexion & Service

Plot No. 23, 1^st Floor, Veer Savarkar Block

Opp. Metro Piller No. 60

Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092

 

3. Intex Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd.

D-18/2, Okhla Ind. Area

New Delhi – 110 020                                                                           ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 30.11.2015

Judgment Reserved on:23.01.2017

Judgment Passed on: 24.01.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Muzir Basha has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Orange Tel (OP-1), Globe Connexion & Service (OP-2) and Intex Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) for deficiency in services. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased INTEX mobile set, model no. INTEX AQUA on 16.10.2014 for a sum of Rs. 7,000/- from M/s. Orange Tel (OP-1) vide S. No. 7423.  It has been stated that from the very beginning, mobile was defective which created some problem as “HANDFREE NOT WORKING”.  The complainant visited at the office of the respondent and deposited his mobile on 31.01.2015 vide job sheet no. 5013157019T001.  He was assured that his mobile will be repaired within 7 days.  The complainant visited the office of respondent after 7 days and received his mobile.  He was shocked when the mobile again created the problem as “APPLICATION NOT WORKING, CHARGING RELATING PROBLEM”.  He again visited the office of the respondent on 12.08.2015 wherein he was assured the mobile to be returned within 7 days after repair vide job sheet no. 508125715018T001.  After 7 days, he received the mobile and again the same problem was repeated and he deposited the mobile on 09.09.2015 vide job sheet no. 509095715004T001 wherein he was assured to get the mobile after 3 days of its repair.  After 3 days, respondent did not repair complainant’s mobile when he visited their office.  Thus, he has stated that activities of the respondent were unfair and the complainant has suffered extreme mental agony.  He has prayed for refund of cost of mobile amounting to Rs. 7,000/-; compensation of Rs. 70,000/- and litigation charges Rs. 20,000/-. 

3.         Notice of the complaint was given to OPs.  They were served, but did not put the appearance; hence, they were proceeded ex-parte. 

4.         In support of its complaint, the complainant has examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.

5.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  From perusal of the evidence and the documents on record, it is noticed that complainant has purchased the mobile on 16.10.2014 for an amount of Rs. 7,000/- from M/s. Orange Tel.  The service report filed on behalf of complainant of dated 31.01.2015, 12.08.2015 and 09.09.2015 show that “Handsfree Connector Not Working, Applications Not Working/Handset Heating/Battery Heating” etc. etc.  From these three reports, it is noticed that there was frequent problem in the application, which could not be got repaired by Globe Connexion & Service (OP-2), the service centre.  When the mobile could not be handed over to the complainant after satisfactory service by Globe Connexion & Service (OP-2) and the mobile being of INTEX, certainly, Intex Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) was responsible for the same.  Thus, there has been deficiency on the part of Globe Connexion & Service (OP-2) as well as Intex Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3).  As far as M/s. Orange Tel (OP-1) was concerned, since the mobile has been purchased from M/s. Orange Tel (OP-1), there cannot be said to be any deficiency on their part as they are only the seller. 

            The fact that there has been recurring problem in the handset, certainly, the complainant have suffered mental pain as mobile in the present day, is an essential item.

            In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there being deficiency on the part of Globe Connexion & Service (OP-2) and Intex Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3), certainly, the liability can be fastened on both of them.  Therefore, we direct Globe Connexion & Service (OP-2) and Intex Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) to return the handset of the complainant after its satisfactory service within a period of 30 days.  We further direct that if the handset is not handed over to the complainant within a period of 30 days with one year extended warranty, the complainant shall be entitled to have the cost of handset of Rs. 7,000/- with 6% interest from the date of its purchase till its realization.  We further award compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000/-, which includes the cost of litigation.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.         

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                 (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

        Member                                                                          Member    

           

    (SUKHDEV SINGH)

          President