DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 383 of 10-06-2016

Decided on : 22-09-2016

Happy @ Kulwinder Singh aged about 25 years S/o Avtar Singh R/o H. No. 71, Dhobiana Basti, Band Gali No.2, Bathinda.

…...Complainant

Versus

1. Intex Technology (India) Ltd., D-18/2, Okla Indl. Area, Phase II, New Delhi 110 020, through its Managing Director/Director

2. Vintage Communication, 16 Krishna Market, Near Hotel Krishna Continental, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Prop/Manager/M.D./ Partner/Incharge

3. Pappu Watch Co. Shop No. 15, PRTC Market, Court Road, Bathinda, through its Prop./Manager/M.D./Partner/Incharge

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum :

Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate.

For the opposite parties : Exparte.

O R D E R

M. P. Singh Pahwa, President

1. Happy complainant (here-in-after referred to as ' complainant') has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Intex Technology (India) Ltd. and others (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties').

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite party No. 1 is manufacturer of Intex mobiles. Opposite party No. 3 is the dealer/distributor of opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 2 is service centre of opposite party No. 1 & 3.

3. It is pleaded that complainant purchased one mobile hand set make Intex from opposite party No. 3 vide bill dated 13-11-2013 for a sum of Rs. 6600/-. At that time, the opposite parties provided sufficient warranty to the complainant.

4. It is alleged that after sometimes from the date of purchase, the said mobile hand set stopped working. There was problems of net work, head phone and battery back up. The complainant made complaint with opposite parties No. 2 & 3. The opposite party No. 2 checked the mobile and returned back the same to complainant after 15 days after solving problem. After sometimes there was same problem in mobile hand set. Again complainant rushed to the shop of opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 kept the mobile for 10 days and after doing the needful returned the same to complainant. Again and again these problems reoccurred in the mobile hand set of the complainant. All the times, complainant rushed to the shop of opposite party No. 2. Lastly there is said defect in the mobile hand set of complainant since 6-4-2016. Complainant again went to the shop of opposite party No. 2 . The opposite party No. 2 kept the mobile with him and asked complainant to come after sometimes. Thereafter complainant visited the shop of opposite party No. 2 again and again, but no satisfactory reply was given and he was harassed and humiliated without any cause and reason. Thereafter opposite party No. 2 revealed that there is manufacturing defect which is not curable. The complainant requested opposite parties No. 2 & 3 to refund the price of mobile hand set but to no effect.

5. It is alleged that on 25-5-2016, the opposite parties have declined the request of the complainant and hand set is still lying with opposite party No. 2.

6. It is further pleaded that due to this act of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and financial loss for which he is entitled to Rs. 50,000/- . He has claimed refund of Rs. 6600/- being price of mobile hand set and cost of litigation.

7. It is also pleaded that due to non-curing defects in the mobile hand set, the complainant purchased new mobile hand set on installments from Reliance on the card of other person namely Sandeep Kumar for Rs. 14,249/- as the mobile is very necessary in these days. Hence, this complaint.

8. Notice of complaint was served upon the opposite parties but none appeared on their behalf. As such, they were proceeded exparte.

9. In exparte evidence, complainant tendered his dated 1-9-2016 (Ex. C-1), affidavit of Sandeep Kumar dated 1-9-2016 (Ex. C-2), photocopy of bill (Ex. C-3), photocopy of job sheet (Ex. C-4), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-5), photocopies of receipts (Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-8), photocopy of bill of new purchased mobile hand set (Ex. C-9), photocopy of confirmation of e-mail (Ex. C-10) and photocopy of amount deposit receipts (Ex. C-11 & Ex. C-12).

10. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record.

11. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as set up in the complaint and as detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that memo Ex. C-3 proves that complainant purchased mobile hand set in question for Rs. 6600/- from opposite party No. 3 on 13-11-2015. Job Card Ex. C-4 proves that mobile hand set is lying with opposite party No. 2 since 6-4-2016. The problem reported in Job Card is regarding 'Head Phone Jack and Network Drop'. The stand of complainant is that opposite parties have failed to do the needful and the mobile is lying in their custody. These averments are supported by the affidavit Ex. C-1 of the complainant.

12. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that complainant has asserted that as the opposite parties have failed to repair the mobile hand set, the complainant has purchased another mobile hand set in the name of his friend Sandeep Kumar. Bill Ex. C-9 proves that another mobile hand set was purchased in the name of Sandeep Kumar on 6-6-2016. Sandeep Kumar has also tendered his affidavit Ex. C-2 wherein he has deposed that mobile hand set purchased in his name is being used by complainant and the complainant is paying installments of loan (finance company) availed for purchase of this mobile. Receipt Ex. C-11 and Ex. C-12 also prove that installments of the mobile hand set purchased subsequently are being paid by complainant. This evidence of complainant is unrebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve this evidence.

13. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.

14. The opposite party No. 3 has been impleaded only for the reason that complainant has purchased mobile hand set in question from it. Copy of invoice Ex. C-3 proves that complainant has purchased mobile hand set for Rs. 6600/-. It is categorically mentioned in this memo that warranty is by company only. Therefore, no relief against opposite party No. 3 is maintainable.

15. The opposite party No. 1 is the manufacturer of mobile hand set in question and opposite party No. 2 is the authorized service centre. In the complaint, the complainant has repeatedly pleaded that as and when the fault occurred, he approached opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 did needful.

16. As per complainant, mobile hand set was handed over to opposite party No. 2 for repair. Job Card Ex. C-4 proves this fact. As per this document, there was problem regarding 'Head Phone Jack and Net Work Drop'. It is the case of the complainant that opposite party No. 2 has failed to do the needful. The complainant has prayed for refund of the amount of Rs. 6600/-, but he has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in this mobile. Job Card reveals that there was defect of 'Head Phone Jack and Net Work Drop'. The complainant has not brought on record any warranty card to prove that he is entitled to refund of the price of this mobile hand set. Moreover, mobile was purchased on 13-11-2015. It has been handed over to opposite party No. 2 on 6-4-2016 i.e. after about 5 months. It only leads to the fact that there was no manufacturing defect.

17. Of course the complainant has brought on record affidavit of Sandeep Kumar and bill Ex. C-10 to prove that he has purchased new mobile as opposite parties failed to do the needful. The complainant cannot be held entitled to refund of the price of mobile hand set only for the reason that he has purchased another mobile hand set.

18. The opposite party No. 2 has failed to repair the mobile hand set within reasonable time. This averment of the complainant is corroborated by his affidavit. The opposite parties have not come forward to contest this complaint. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2.

19. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 2,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to return the mobile hand set in question of complainant duly repaired. Period from 6-04-16 till the delivery of mobile after repair shall stand excluded from the warranty period.

20. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

21. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

22. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced :

    22-09-2016

    (M.P.Singh Pahwa )

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh )

    Member