CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/190/16

                    Date of Institution:-    18.05.2016

                    Order Reserved on:- 10.05.2024

                               Date of Decision:-      05.06.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Manoj Singh Rawat

S/o Late Sh. G.S. Rawat

Residing At:

House No.-H 142, SaurabVihar

JaitPur, BadarPur Delhi – 110044               .….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. Intex Technologies (India) Ltd.

Through its Director

Mr. NarenderBansa Managing Director & Chairman

Corporate office

Intex Technologies (India) Limited

D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II,

New Delhi – 110020

2. Mr. NarenderBansa

Managing Director & Chairman

Corporate off:

Corporate office

IntexTechnologies (India) Limited

D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II,

New Delhi – 110020……Opposite Parties

Per Dr. HarshaliKaur, Member

1. The Complainant booked an Intex Cloud Flash Mobile phone from an online website for Rs.6999/- on 17.02.2016. The mobile phone came with a one-year warranty. The OP delivered the product two days after booking it at the Complainant's residence. The Complainant has annexed the copy of the bill dated 17.02.2016 as Annexure-A.

2. The Complainant alleges that his mobile phone was not working and was defective from the beginning, with problems like hanging, swelling of battery, voice issues, etc. The Complainant approached the customer care of OP-1 on 24.02.2016 and handed over his phone to the customer care department. He was assured that OPs would solve all the problems with his mobile phone, but OPs failed to repair it adequately.

3. The Complainant again approached OP-1 customer care on 16.03.2016. He states that the OPs replaced the motherboard of his phone. However, despite the motherboard replacement, it still did not work correctly, and the issues with his phone were not resolved. The Complainant has annexed the job sheet/repairing slip dated 24.02.2016 and 16.03.2016 as Annexure-B.

4. The Complainant alleges that despite approaching the OPs several times,his grievance was not addressed even though his phone was within the warranty period.

5. Hence, alleging deficiency in service, the Complainant filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant prays for direction to the OPsto refund the purchase amount of Rs.6999/- and Rs.1 lakh along with interest @18% from the date of filing the case towards mental agony, pain and harassment faced by him.
6. The OPs did not appear before this Forum even after receiving the notice issued by this Forum and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04.10.2016 when the Complainant filed the proof of adequate service. Thereafter, the Complainant filed his ex-parte and written arguments. The Complainant did not appear to address oral arguments despite several opportunities, and hence, we felt it prudent to reserve the present complaint based on material on record due to its long pendency. We have carefully gonethrough the facts and circumstances of the complaint and perused the documents filed by the contesting parties.

7. We have considered the facts of the present complaint and have perused the documents filed by the Complainant to substantiate his testimony. The Complainant has filed the retail invoice amounting to Rs.6999/- dated 17.02.2016. He has also annexed the service job sheet dated 24.02.2016 and 02.03.2016, which reflects that the Complainant's mobile was repaired at both times under warranty. Clearly, the Complainant, who had purchased the phone on 17.02.2016, found some issues within 7 days of purchase, which were repaired by the OP but not to the satisfaction of the Complainant.

8. The Complainant again found defects in his repaired phone, which he submitted to OP-1 on 2.03.2016 within a week of the repair. The OPs then replaced the motherboard of his new phone, which he had purchased two weeks back. Like a computer's CPU, the motherboard is sometimes called the "brain" or "heart" of the mobile. It houses the mobile phone's essential parts and components. All peripherals that comprisethe device, such as the RAM, wireless networks, storage, processor, camera, and external ports, are soldered or otherwise connected to the motherboard.In our view, this replacement done by the OP merely two weeks after purchasing the phone is enough to show that the Complainant's phone had some defect which the OPs could not rectify, due to which the motherboard had to be replaced.

9. Since the OPs are ex-parte and have chosen not to appear before us to contest the complaint,we have no reason to disbelieve the uncontroverted and unrebutted testimony of the Complainant, which he has duly substantiated with cogent evidence.

10. Hence, allowing the complaint, we direct OPs to jointly and severally refund the cost of the mobile phone, i.e. Rs.6,999/- along with Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation cost.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 05.06.2024.