Haryana

Jind

CC/15/148

Rajeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Intex Technologies India OP1 And M/S Happy Communication OP2 And Dev Mobile Shop OP3 - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Vinod Bansal

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 159 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 29.10.2015
   Date of final order: 10.6.2016 

Rajeev Kumar son of Sh. Ved Parkash resident of 452/27, Subhash Nagar, Rohtak road, Jind. 
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Intex Technologies India Ltd. (Corporate office) D-18/2, Okhla Industrial area near BSES Rajdhani power Office Phase-2, Delhi-110020.
M/s Happy Communication opposite Bharat Cinema, Shiv Chowk Jhanj gate, Jind through its proprietor/authorized signatory. 
Dev Mobile shop No.43 opposite Reliance Web World, Jind authorized Service Centre of Intex Mobile.
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant.
          Opposite parties already ex-parte. 
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased  Intex mobile set model 9-2199-1066-3 GSM Aqua Star HD dual sim for a sum of Rs.8200/- vide bill No.6069 dated 24.10.2014 from opposite party No.2. The above said mobile is having one year manufacturing warranty from the date of its purchase. From the very beginning the mobile of the complainant was not functioning properly 
        Rajeev Kumar Vs. Intex Technologies India Ltd. etc.
                    …2…
and started giving problem of display, heating, hanging and networking etc. The complainant handed over the mobile to opposite party No.3 for rectifying the defect. The opposite party No.3 has changed the screen/display of the above said mobile and charged a sum of Rs.3000/- from the complainant illegally/arbitrarily without issuing any receipt despite demands. Thereafter the problems of heating, hanging and networking etc. in the mobile remained and the same could not be removed. The complainant deposited the mobile with opposite party No.3 for about 6/7 times  but the defects in the mobile could not be removed. The complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.3 many times  for taking back his mobile but the opposite party No.3 has not returned back the mobile of the complainant after removing the defect. The mobile of the complainant is lying with the opposite party No.3.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to refund the mobile set after removing the defect or to refund the price of mobile i.e. Rs.8200/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. 
2.    Opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 8.12.2015.
3.    In ex-parte evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1,  copy of  cash memo Ex.  C-2 and  copy of job sheet Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence.

 
        Rajeev Kumar Vs. Intex Technologies India Ltd. etc.
                    …3…
4.    We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of  complainant and perused the record placed on file. The complainant had purchased a mobile phone against a  sum of Rs.8200/- vide bill No.6069 dated 24.10.2014 from opposite party No.2.  It is further argued that from the date of purchase the mobile of the complainant was not functioning properly and started giving problems of display, heating, hanging and networking etc. The mobile set having one year warranty from the date of its purchase. The opposite party No.3 has also illegally charged Rs.3,000/- for replacement of screen/display however, the mobile set was within a warranty period. Several complaints were made with the opposite party No. 3 but the opposite party No.3 has failed to remove the defects in the mobile in question. The opposite party No.3 did not return the mobile set of the complainant till today. In support of his complaint, the complainant has also filed his affidavit Ex. C-1 as well as  job sheet dated 6.8.2015Ex. C-3, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the mobile set is in dead condition.    On the other hand,  the opposite parties did not bother to appear. In these circumstances and an adverse inference  is drawn against the opposite parties they have not removed the defects in the mobile set and mobile set has inherent defect which could not be removed.  It is admitted that the mobile in question is having one year warranty. Hence, there is a great deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complaint of the complainant is allowed with 
        Rajeev Kumar Vs. Intex Technologies India Ltd. etc.
                    …4…
costs directing the opposite parties to replace the mobile of the complainant with new one of the same model within 30 days after receiving the certified copy of order. If the same model of the mobile is not available then the opposite parties will pay the cost of the mobile amounting to Rs.8,200/- (Rs. eight thousand and two hundred only) within 30 days after receiving the certified copy of order. In case of failure an interest @9% p.a. will be paid to the complainant by the opposite parties from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 29.10.2015 till its realization.  Cost is assessed as Rs.1100/- to the complainant, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take the legal action against the opposite parties under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 10.6.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

        Rajeev Kumar Vs. Intex Technologies India Ltd. etc.

 Present:  Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant.
          Opposite parties already ex-parte. 

              Remaining arguments heard. To come up on 10.6.2016 for orders. 
                                    President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  6.6.2016

Present:  Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant.
          Opposite parties already ex-parte. 

         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                          President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  10.6.2016