Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/255/2017

Balwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Intex Technologies India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

13 Mar 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	255 of 2017
Date of Institution	23.10.2017
Date of Decision	13.03.2018

Balwinder Singh S/o Sh. Mehar Singh, #982,
Sector-79, Mohali.

…..Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1. The Managing Director, INTEX Technologies (India) Ltd., D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi – 110020.
2.  The Proprietor, Electra Care (Authorised Service centre of Intex Mobiles) Quite Office No.1, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh – 160022.

      …..Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:  Sh. Balwinder Singh, Appellant in person.

                      Sh. Anmol Singh, Deputy Manager of the respondents.

                  

                              

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.08.2017 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it partly allowed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondents) as under:-

“7]  In view of the above findings, we are of the view that the complaint deserves to be partly allowed. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed against Opposite Parties with directions to refund Rs.4999/- being the price of the mobile handset in question, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on said amount mentioned from the date of filing this complaint till realization. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, there is no order as to cost and compensation.”

2. The facts in brief, are that, the complainant purchased mobile handset of Intex make from Anmol Watches, Sector 22, Chandigarh on 17.05.2016 by paying an amount of Rs.4999/-. It was stated that the said handset did not work properly, from the day one and it had a number of problems i.e. switching off,
   non-responsive touch, ear piece problem, automatic recording of calls etc. It was further stated that the handset was taken to the service centre of Opposite Parties, just after three days of its purchase, and it was returned after 6-7 days, by just replacing the ear piece. It was further stated that the problems still persisted and on 11.07.2016, complainant again visited the service centre of Opposite Parties and requested for replacement of the mobile handset, but they refused to do so. It was further stated that subsequently, the complainant filed a complaint before Consumer Fora, but withdrew the same on the assurance of the Opposite Parties, that now the handset will work properly. It was further stated that the handset did not work for a single day and soon it started malfunctioning, and then the complainant filed another complaint and withdrew that also, on the assurance of the Opposite Parties that they will refund the price of the handset, but they failed. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
3. The Opposite Parties filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case that the mobile was duly repaired, but the complainant did not collect the same, however, the Opposite Party No.2 has called the complainant a number of times. It was further stated that the mobile was not having any defect and the complainant was not coming forward to collect the mobile and was adamant on refund of the price of mobile. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.
4. The complainant filed replication, wherein he reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those as contained in the written statement of the Opposite Parties.
5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the appellant in person and Counsel for the Opposite Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, partly allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the complainant/appellant.
8. We have heard both the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9.   After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the appellant in person and Deputy Manager of the respondents, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be partly accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
10. Sh. Balwinder Singh, Appellant argued that while ordering refund of Rs.4,999/- being the price of mobile handset, the Forum did not award any compensation/litigation cost. It was stated that only interest @9% p.a. on the said amount was granted, which is not adequate.
11. While perusing the learned Forum’s order, it is observed that the Opposite Parties/respondents were directed to refund a sum of Rs.4,999/- being the price of the mobile handset, in question, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order dated 10.08.2017, failing which they shall also be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the aforesaid amount, from the date of filing the complaint, till realization. It is observed from the records, that the respondents had brought a cheque bearing No.118225 dated 02.11.2017 of Rs.4,999/- and deposited with this Commission on 27.11.2017 which has already become invalid. There is a delay of around two months in making the said payment of Rs.4999/-, to the appellant by the respondents, and going by the impugned order of the Forum, the amount is to attract interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint. Since, the complaint was filed on 03.04.2017, the interest amount would work out to Rs.500/- approximately till date.  
12. In facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, grant of consolidated amount of Rs.2,000/-, besides the relief given by the District Forum would meet the ends of justice.
13. The respondents shall pay the amount of Rs.4999/-, against the invalid cheque dated 02.11.2017, which was earlier deposited in this Commission on 27.11.2017, alongwith @9% interest and Rs.2,000/- towards compensation etc., within a period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.
14. No other point, was urged, by the parties.
15. The District Forum order is modified in the above terms and the said appeal is partly accepted.
16. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

13.03.2018

                                                                                                                                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                            [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

      

                                                                                                                                                                                                             Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

                                        

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

GP

 

                                 STATE COMMISSION

APPEAL No.255 of 2017

(Balwinder Singh Vs. Intex Technologies India Ltd. & Anr.)

 

Argued by:

Sh. Balwinder Singh, appellant in person.

Sh. Anmol Singh, Deputy Manager of the respondents.

 

Dated    the   13^th  day of  March, 2018

                       

             Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal filed by the appellant has been partly accepted.

 

 

Sd/-                                         Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER

(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT

(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER