IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Sri P.Das
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
Smti S.Bora
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum,Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.32/2017
1.Sri Rajiv Majumdar : Complainants
S/o Late Bani Majumdar
Resident of Vill: Kacharigaon
P.O & P.S: Tezpur
Dist: Sonitpur,Assam
Vs.
Intex Technologies (India)Ltd., : Opp. party
B-26 Sector-83 Noida, Dist: Gautam Bodh Nagar
(U.P)201301
2.HOTMAIL, Main Road
Tezpur-784001, Sonitpur,Assam
3)Mobile World, Pratima Complex
Hatipil Khana, Tezpur-784001
Sonitpur,Assam
Appearance:
Mr.A.Kar,Adv : For Complainant
Mr. Wazir Qureshi(Verifier of W.S and written argument) : For Opp. party No.1 &3
None : For the Opp.party No.2
Date of argument : 04-06-18
Date of Judgment : 18-06-18.
JUDGMENT 32/2017
- The brief history of the complaint is that the mobile handset of the Complainant, after three months of its purchase, developed problems of ‘automatic restart and no network’. The handset being under Warranty of a year, the Complainant therefore, on 13-10-17 visited the vendor, opposite party No.2 and on instruction, Complainant handed over the handset to opposite party No.3, Service Centre of Intex mobiles, for repair. On the plea that the defect is major and the handset need to be sent to Guwahati for repair, Complainant was
asked by the opposite party No.3 to wait for some days. Then, after receipt of the repaired handset back from the opposite party No.3, Complainant found the defect still persistent and brought the handset to the opposite party No.2 and demanded that the mobile be replaced with a new one free from all defects, but the opposite party No.2 refused to do so. Alleging that the opposite parties were deficient in their service insofar as in failing to either remove the defect in the handset or to replace the handset which was under Warranty, the Complainant is thus, before the Forum praying a total relief of Rs.10,000/- which is inclusive of the price of the mobile handset of Rs.6000/- .
- Opposite parties contested the case by filing written version.Opposite party No.3 appears to have filed written version for himself and also for and on behalf of opposite party No.1. While admitting of having attended the mobile handset, the opposite party No.1 and 3, had banked on the issue of rendering its service as and when preferred by the Complainant and had therefore, denied any deficiency on its part, the opposite party No.2 on the other hand, on the plea of simply being a retailer having no role to play in providing service of any sort post-sale, has prayed for expunging its name from the purview of the proceedings.
- Complainant tendered his evidence-in-chief on affidavit exhibiting few documents thereunder. None of the opposite parties examined any witness on its side nor came forward to cross examine the Complainant.
- We have carefully considered the entire materials available on record inclusive of the written argument filed by theComplainant and the opposite party No.1 and 3 and draw up the following Points for decision of the dispute.
POINTS-
(i)Whether the opposite party No.3 failed to mend the defects that appeared in the mobile
handset?
(ii)Whether there was deficiency in service ?
(iii)Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION ON THE POINTS WITH DISCUSSION
- That the mobile handset in dispute, after about three months of purchase developed some problem and therefore, the same was taken to the opposite party No.3, is found an undisputed fact. That the handset was attended by the opposite party No.3 and returned to the Complainant.
- Complainant categorically stated in his complaint and evidence-in-chief that on the very next day of receipt of the handset after repair, noticing same problem, he had taken the handset to the opposite party No.2 and reported the matter. This time he demanded the opposite party No.2 to replace the handset with a new one free from any defects. But the opposite party No.2 refused to do so.
Evidently, opposite party No.2 is a vendor only and the disputed handset, after its repair, was never taken to the authorized service centre (Opposite party No.3).
- Complainant has not produced any document to prove that at the time of sale, there was any contract between him and the vendor that in case of any defect developed in the handset during the period of Warranty, the vendor will be liable to replace the handset with an new one. Rather, by exhibiting Cashmemo (Ext-1) he himself proves that as per Terms and Conditions No.1, which reads “Good once sold can’t be exchanged or taken back” the vendor is not liable to replace the handset.
- As per Job Sheet (Ext-2) issued by the opposite party, Complainant on 13-10-2017 visited the opposite party with the mobile handset with complaint of “battery and network problem”. As alleged by the Complainant, the handset was received by the opposite party No.3 for repair at Guwahati. Sometime thereafter, on being called by the opposite party No.3 to receive the handset after repair, Complainant received the same. But from the next day he noticed same problem in the handset.
The opposite parties No.1 and 3 denying any deficiency on their part admitted repairing of the handset.
- The Complainant in his evidence-in-chief reiterated what have been stated in his complaint. Evidently, Complainant had not taken the handset to the Service Centre when it developed same problem after repair. On the other hand, opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 failed to state about the nature of repairing done. Nor they stated about the quality of battery or its working capacity. Since the problem developed just one day after repair, so we have no hesitation to hold that the problem in the handset was not properly attended.
In the result, Point No.(i) is decided in the affirmative. Resultantly, Point No.(ii) is also decided in the affirmative.
Under the complaint, Complainant has prayed for price of the mobile handset amounting to Rs.6000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.4000/-
- Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, we are of the opinion that the handset is required to be sent to the opposite party No.3 with initimation to the opposite party No.1 (manufacturer) for repair and thorough check up with direction to replace the battery with a new and good quality one. The opposite party No.1 is to extend Warranty period of one year from the date of return of the handset to the Complainant. Complainant, in our opinion, is entitled to cost of litigation as prayed for from the opposite party No.3. The complaint stands dismissed against the opposite party No.2 however, with cost of Rs.500/-.
O R D E R
Consequently, the complaint stands allowed against opposite party No.1 and 3.But the case stands dismissed against opposite party No.2 with cost of Rs.500/-. Complainant is directed to take steps to deposit the mobile handset, which is in the custody of the Forum as Material exhibit-1, to the opposite party No.3 with intimation to the opposite party No.1 (manufacturer) for repair and thorough check up. The opposite party No.3 is directed to pay Rs.4000/- (Four thousand) only as cost of litigation and replace the battery with a new and good quality one. The opposite party No.1 is directed to extend Warranty period of one year from the date of return of the handset to the Complainant post repair. Opposite party No.1 and 3 are directed to comply as above within 30 (thirty) days of receipt of the mobile handset from the complainant.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 18th day of June, 2018.
Dictated and corrected by: Pronounced and delivered
( A.Devee)
President (A. DEVEE)
District Consumer D.R Forum,Sonitpur President
Tezpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sonitpur,Tezpur
I agree:- (SMT.S.BORA)
Member
.
