BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.173 of 2016

Date of Instt. 12.04.2016

Date of Decision :27.06.2016

Suraj Kumar aged about 22 years son of Surjit Kumar R/o House No.366, Bhargo Camp, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.Intex Technologies India Ltd., D-18/2, Okhla, Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020, through its Partner/Chairman/ Director.

2.Mobile House, Phagwara Gate, near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its Incharge/Manager/Prop.

3.M/s Gopal Service Centre, EG-796, Mandi Road, Near Railway Station, Jalandhar through its Incharge/Manager/Prop.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Mrs. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Sidharth Puri Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Opposite parties exparte.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that complainant purchased Intex mobile set from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 2.5.2015 for a sum of Rs.8500/- with one year warranty. Complainant submitted that after about 8/9 months from its purchase, complainant found that mobile set was not charging properly. Complainant approached OP No.3 authorized service centre of OP No.1 for rectification of the defect. OP No.3 told the complainant to purchase a new charger. So, complainant purchased new charger for Rs.500/- but inspite of that the said problem remained and the complainant again approached OP No.3 on 15.3.2016. OP No.3 returned the mobile set to the complainant after repair after about one week. But the mobile set showed the same problem of charging. Complainant again visited OP No.3 on 2.4.2016 and asked OP No.3 to replace the mobile set or to refund the price of the mobile set. OP No.3 assured that the complaint of the complainant shall be forwarded to OP No.1. But OP No.3 neither returned the mobile set after repair nor replaced the same nor refund the price of the mobile set and since then the mobile set has been lying with OP No.3. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay the price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.8500/- alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Notice of this complaint was given to the OPs but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed evidence.

4. We have heard the complainant and minutely gone through the record.

5. From the averments of the complaint and the evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that complainant purchased Intex mobile set from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 2.5.2015 Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.8500/- with one year warranty. As per complainant version after about 8 or 9 months from its purchase, complainant found that mobile set was not charging properly. Complainant approached OP No.3 authorized service centre of OP No.1 for rectification of the defect. OP No.3 told the complainant to purchase a new charger. So, complainant purchased new charger for Rs.500/- but inspite of that the said problem remained and the complainant again approached OP No.3 on 15.3.2016 vide job sheet Ex.C2. OP No.3 returned the mobile set to the complainant after repair after about one week. But the mobile set showed the same problem of charging. Complainant again visited OP No.3 on 2.4.2016 vide job sheet Ex.C3 and asked OP No.3 to replace the mobile set or to refund the price of the mobile set. OP No.3 assured that the complaint of the complainant shall be forwarded to OP No.1 but OP No.3 neither returned the mobile set nor replaced the same nor refund the price of the mobile set and since then the mobile set has been lying with OP No.3. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 3 qua the complainant.

6. Complainant proved his averments as narrated in the complaint through his affidavit Ex.CA and he also proved on record the retail invoice Ex.C1, job sheets dated 15.3.2016 Ex.C2 and job sheet dated 2.4.2016 Ex.C3. The evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged as none appeared on behalf of the OPs despite service to contest the complaint filed by complainant nor any person on behalf of OPs dared to file affidavit to rebut the evidence produced on record by the complainant.

7. From entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased Intex mobile set from OP No.2 manufactured by OP No.1 on 2.5.2015 vide retail invoice Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.8500/-. As per record produced by complainant i.e. job sheet Ex.C2 dated 15.3.2016 and job sheet dated 2.4.2016 Ex.C3, it is clear that complainant used this mobile set for more than 10 months and it did not give any problem. After a period of more than 10 months from its purchase, complainant brought the mobile set to OP No.3 authorized service centre of OP No.1, for the first time on 15.3.2016 with problem of battery and the same was repaired and handed over to the complainant. Thereafter, again complainant approached OP No.3 on 2.4.2016 vide job sheet Ex.C3 with same problem of charging of the mobile set. Complainant could not prove any inherent/manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question which is beyond repair. So, this complaint is disposed of with the directions to OP No.3 with whom the mobile set is lying, to repair the mobile set and make it fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. As the OP No.3 did not repair the mobile set of the complainant for such a long period and he has to file the present complaint, therefore, OPs No.1 & 3 are directed to pay the cost of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/-. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh

27.06.2016 Member Member President