Haryana

Jind

CC/142/2015

Madan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Intex Technologies India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. K.K. Mittal

06 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, JIND. 
                                                 Complaint Case No. 142 of 2015
                                                 Date of Institution:     8.10.2015
                                                 Date of Decision   :     6.10.2016

Madan Lal son of Sh. Ramji Dass resident of 142/5, Gandhi Nagar, Jind, District Jind.

                                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Intex Technologies India Ltd.,D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-110020, through its MD/Authorized signatory.
Gandhi Communication, A-50, H.K.M.V., Safidon Road, Jind through its proprietor.
Dev Mobile, Shop No.43, opposite Reliance Web World, Jind through its proprietor/authorized signatory.
                                                                …..Opposite parties.

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

CORAM: SH.A.K. SARDANA PRESIDENT.
      SMT. BIMLA SHEOKAND, MEMBER.
              SH. M.K. KHURANA, MEMBER.    

Present:  Sh. K.R. Sharma  Adv. counsel for complainant.
          Sh. Neeraj Miglani Adv. counsel for OP No.2.
          OPs No.1&3 ex-parte. 
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts of the  present complaint are that  the complainant  purchased a mobile set  Intex Nova  bearing EMEI No.911380751936836-91138075193368844 in a sum of Rs.1,450/-  from OP No.2 vide bill No.2351 dated 16.9.2014 which was having one year warranty from the date of its purchase.  At the  time of purchase, OP No.2 also assured the complainant that the mobile is of  a good quality and they will replace the same in case of any defect in it. The mobile of the complainant  worked properly up to January, 2015 and  thereafter became totally dead & stopped its functioning & also developed heating problem. Thereafter on 6.2.2015, the complainant visited the OP No.3  i.e. service centre of OP company for removal of  the defect in the mobile, where the OP No.3 retained the mobile of complainant and returned back after two days after rectifying the defects but on functioning, the same problem again existed and thus the complainant again visited OP No.3 service centre of company and also made complaint to OP company on Toll Free Number 18601085555 whereupon OP No.3 again retained the mobile set in question of the complainant and issued job sheet No.507151015003T001 dated 15.7.2015. Thereafter the complainant  visited many times to receive back his mobile  but the OP No.3 did not return the same  on the pretext that the mobile set had not been received back from OP No.1. At last, the complainant served a legal notice dated 21.8.2015 through his counsel Sh. Kamal Rai Sharma, Adv. upon the OPs but all in vain. As such, the complainant has submitted that the OPs are admittedly deficient in providing proper services to him and  prayed that the complaint be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the price of mobile i.e. Rs.1,450/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a.,  and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain & agony   and also  pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice,  OP NO.2 appeared through counsel whereas none appeared on behalf of OPs No.1&3 despite service through registered post. As such, OPs No.1&3 were proceeded against ex-parte. OP NO.2 tendered reply to the complaint raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form and complainant has no cause of action & locus-standi to file the present complaint against answering OP. On merits, it has been urged that there was no technical or manufacturing defect in the said mobile nor any expert report has been placed on file to prove any defect in the mobile in question. Further, it has been urged by the OP No.2  that no  any allegation has been leveled by the complainant against OP No.2 rather he has alleged that the mobile set in question was handed over to OP No.3 i.e. service centre of OP company for rectification of defects in the mobile. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. In the end, he  has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 
3.    To prove his contention,  the complainant has produced his own affidavit as Annexure C-7 along with documents as  Annexures C-1 to C-6 & C-8 in  his evidence and closed the same whereas counsel for  OP No.2 closed the evidence  on behalf of OP No.2 on 31.8.2016 without tendering any document.
4.    We have heard the Ld. Counsels of both the parties and perused the record placed on file. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased a mobile set of Intex Nova on 16.9.2014 from OP No.2 & one year warranty was given to him for the said mobile set. The main grievance of the complainant is that after some time of purchase, said mobile set started giving trouble and ultimately became dead and stopped working. The complainant contacted OP No.3 which is service centre of the OP company for repair and rectification of the defects in the set and the same was retained by  OP No.3. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the said mobile was neither repaired nor returned back to the complainant despite various visits and the same is still lying in the custody of OP No.3 which is admittedly a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. He further argued that OPs be directed to  refund  the cost of mobile set alongwith costs as prayed for in the complaint. Besides it,  to strengthen his case, the Ld. Counsel of the complainant relied upon the case law reported in 2008 (1) CLT page 15 rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Soni Erricson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal & 2007 (1) CLT page 614 passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor and others wherein it is held that “inspite of repair of mobile set, it did not work and thus observed that the handset was having inherent defects and refund of cost of mobile was ordered.”  Counsel for complainant further convinced that the facts of the present complaint are similar to the above mentioned case law as the mobile set in question could not be repaired by OP No.3  inspite of retaining the same meaning thereby the same is not repairable. 
              On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for OP No.2 argued that the answering  OP is only a seller and he sold the mobile in question in a packed condition and the liability, if any,  lies upon the manufacturer i.e.  OP No.1 & its service centre i.e. OP No.3. 
5.    After hearing  Ld. Counsel of both the parties and going through the record, it is clear from the document Annexure C-1 that mobile set in question of OP company was purchased by complainant from OP No.2 on 16.9.2014. It is also not in dispute that the said mobile set was having a warranty of one year from the date of purchase as transpired from document Ex. C-8 i.e. warranty card placed on file by the complainant. Further, it is also not in dispute that the mobile set in question became defective during the warranty period and deposited with OP No.3 for rectification of defects  as clear from document Annexure C-2 i.e. job sheet dated 15.7.2015. Further, OPs No.1 &3 did not bother to appear and contest the present complaint despite service and in these circumstances we have no option  except to believe the version of the complainant that OP No.3 did not returned back the mobile set in question till date. As such, we hold that the OPs have neither rectified the defective mobile in question despite warranty  nor returned back the same to the complainant  till date which is admittedly a deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1&3. Hence, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs No.1 &3 to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-
(i)    to return the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.1,450/- to the complainant  
       alongwith simple interest @9% per annum from the date of 
        institution of complaint to till its realization.
    (ii)    to pay a sum of  Rs.3,000/- as compensation on account of 
                 harassment, mental pain & agony etc.
    (iii)  also to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. 
              Let the aforesaid order/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced:

                                   PRESIDENT                                                                                         District Consumer Disputes
                                  Redressal Forum, Jind. 

                                    Member

                                    Member