Delhi

North West

CC/581/2016

FAHAD TAHIR - Complainant(s)

Versus

INTEX TECHNOLOGIES INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

09 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM : NORTH-WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088

 

CC No: 581/2016

D.No._________                                                         Dated: ___________

                     

In the matter of:

 

FAHAD TAHIR S/o Sh. TAHIR ALI,

R/o H. No-E-4, GALI No-1,

SUBHASH VIHAR, SHAITAN CHOWK,

NORTH GHONDA, DELHI-110053.                                           … COMPLAINANT

 

                Versus

 

1. M/s INTEX TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD. (COMPANY),

    D-18/2, OKHLA INDL. AREA, PHASE-II,

    NEW DELHI-110020.

  

2. INTEX GRUKUL TECHNOLOGY,

    F-397, KHAJURI KHAS, BHAJANPURA,

    DELHI-110094.

 

3. SHUBHI COMMUNICATION,

    SHOP 246, PKT-2, PASHIMPURI,

    DELHI-110063.                                                    … OPPOSITE PARTY(ies)

 

 

CORAM : SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

                SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

      MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER   

         

                                                                      Date of decision: 09.12.2016

 

SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

 

ORDER

1.       Complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under

 

 

          section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986 thereby alleging that he

          was enticed by the advertisement of OP-1 and purchased an Intex mobile  handset model Aqua Power HD dual sim for Rs.9,900/- from OP-3 vide retail invoice/bill dated 05.04.2015 with one year after service warranty and assurance of being a genuine product and good after sale service. The handset was not working properly/satisfactorily right from his purchase having the problem display not work and hanging problem. OP-3 was contacted in the first week of Sep-2015 who advised to contact the OP-2 which is the authorised customer care of Intex and accordingly OP-2 was contacted for rectification of all the problems and the service personal informed that there is some software problem in the handset which could be rectified through up gradation of the software but could not be made functional even after up gradation of software. The complainant again visited the address of OP-2 on 27.02.2016 and after inspection the service personal of OP-2 informed that there is some inherent problem in the handset and requested to deposit the defective handset with the assurance for replacement the defective set with a new mobile handset. In the compelling circumstances, the complainant deposited the mobile vide job sheet dated 27.02.2016 with the assurance that the mobile set will be returned after 10 days. Thereafter the mobile

 

 

set again started creating problem as camera not working and hanging problem. The complainant again contacted OP-2 vide job sheet dated 14.03.2016 and the mobile set was again deposited and was asked to come after some days. The complainant visited OP-2 on 01.04.2016 and found that the mobile in question was replaced with white colour instead of black colour and OP-2 refused to change the new mobile and the complainant refused to take the replaced white colour handset and requested OP-2 either to replace the new mobile or deliver the mobile in question. The complainant further alleged that the technical defects in the mobile set were apprised to OP-1 & 2 many times but the grievance of the complainant was not resolved and the mobile is still lying with OP.   

2.       On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for refund of Rs.9,900/- being the price of mobile set with interest from the date of purchase of mobile phone till realization, compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing him mental agony and harassment and has also prayed for grant of legal expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

3.    Notices were issued to OPs through speed post for appearance and the complainant filed proof of services showing that notices have been served upon the OPs on 18.07.2016 as per track reports. But none for OPs appeared despite service and as such all the OPs were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.09.2016.

 

4.       In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence. The complainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice dated 05.04.2015 for purchase of mobile set for total value of Rs.9,900/- and also placed on record copies of job sheets dated 27.02.2016, 14.03.2016 and 01.04.2016.

5.       This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Accordingly the OP-1 is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

Accordingly, OP-1 is directed as under:

a)  To refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.9,900/-.

b)  To pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and  harassment caused to the complainant.

c)  To pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost.

6.       The above amount shall be paid by the OP-1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment.  If OP-1 fail to comply with the order within 30 days, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 7.     Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 9^th December, 2016.

 

 

 

 

        BARIQ AHMED                           USHA KHANNA            M.K. GUPTA

           (MEMBER)                                   (MEMBER)               (PRESIDENT)