| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No.689 of 2017 Date of Institution: 26.09.2017 Date of Decision: 03.01.2018 Rajan Sharma son of Sh.Chan Sharma, resident of H.No.4024, Gurbax Nagar, Nawankot, Amritsar- Mobile No.9041114455. Complainant Versus - Intex Technologies (India) Limited, B-19/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi through its M.D/ authorized Signatory/ Dealing Officials.
- Space Communications, 28-FF, Nehru Shopping Complex, Lawrence Road, Amritsar through its Proprietor/ Authorised signatory.
- Shree Ji Authorised Service Centre at Shop No.3, Tripat Saini Market, Near Bus Stand, Sohna at Gurgaon, Haryana through its authorized signatory/ Manager/ Authorised Dealer.
Opposite Parties Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date. Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Rajan Sharma, in person. For the Opposite Parties: Exparte. Quorum: Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member Ms.Rachna Arora, Member. Order dictated by: Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Rajan Sharma, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that on 19.12.2016 the complainant had purchased one Mobile Set of Intex Aqua 4G+ having IMEI No.911445101499817 from Opposite Party No.2 worth Rs.6500/-. At the time of purchase of Mobile Set in question, the Opposite Party assured the complainant that that the said Mobile Set is having one year warranty and guarantee and further assured the complainant that in future, if said Mobile Set will create any type of problem, the same will cover under warranty period the authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1 will remove the problem free of cost and in case the Mobile Set stop working and then Opposite Party No.1 will exchange the same with new one. In this respect in the month of June, 2017 the Mobile Set of the complainant totally stopped working and was not operated properly and used to shut down immediately after its starting. At that time, the complainant was on his job at Gurgaon for which he visited the service centre of Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Opposite Party No.3 at Gurgaon, where the authorized dealer/ authorities of service centre collected the Mobile Set of the complainant and after 15/20 days returned the same to the complainant and asked him that his Mobile Set does not fall under the warranty period and started the fact to complainant that this Mobile Set was purchased on 13.8.2015 by someone else and its warranty period was already expired on 12.8.2016 and asked the complainant to pay the charges for inspection of the Mobile Set to them upon which the complainant paid Rs.172/- as expenses of charges and they further refused to remove the problem from the Mobile Set free of cost and further refused to replace the same with new one. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties to rectify the problem of the Mobile Set in question and to replace the same with new one, but the Opposite Parties finally refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
- Opposite Parties may be directed to replace the Mobile Set of the complainant with new one or to refund the amount of the said Mobile Set.
- Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the complainant for suffering harassment, mental pain, agony and inconvenience.
- The cost of the complaint alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
- Any other relief to which the complainant found entitled under law and equity, be also awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint. - Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of both the parties despite due service, hence Opposite Parties ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order of this Forum.
- In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of bill dated 19.12.2016 Ex.C2, copy of the bill dated 26.6.2017 Ex.C3, copy of the job sheet Ex.C4 and closed the exparte evidence.
- We have heard the complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
- From the perusal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that on 19.12.2016 the complainant had purchased one Mobile Set of Intex Aqua 4G+ having IMEI No.911445101499817 from Opposite Party No.2 worth Rs.6500/-, copy of invoice accounts for Ex.C2. At the time of purchase of Mobile Set in question, the Opposite Party assured the complainant that that the said Mobile Set is having one year warranty and guarantee and further assured the complainant that in future, if said Mobile Set will create any type of problem, the same will cover under warranty period the authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1 will remove the problem free of cost and in case the Mobile Set stop working and then Opposite Party No.1 will exchange the same with new one. In this respect in the month of June, 2017 the Mobile Set of the complainant totally stopped working and was not operated properly and used to shut down immediately after its starting. At that time, the complainant was on his job at Gurgaon for which he visited the service centre of Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Opposite Party No.3 at Gurgaon, where the authorized dealer/ authorities of service centre collected the Mobile Set of the complainant and after 15/20 days returned the same to the complainant and asked him that his Mobile Set does not fall under the warranty period and started the fact to complainant that this Mobile Set was purchased on 13.8.2015 by someone else and its warranty period was already expired on 12.8.2016 and asked the complainant to pay the charges for inspection of the Mobile Set to them upon which the complainant paid Rs.172/- as expenses of charges and they further refused to remove the problem from the Mobile Set free of cost and further refused to replace the same with new one. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties to rectify the problem of the Mobile Set in question and to replace the same with new one, but the Opposite Parties finally refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant.The evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record. In this way, the Opposite Parties have impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Parties have no defence to dislodge the complaint. The Mobile Set in question became defective within the warranty period and it is not repairable , so in such a situation, the Opposite Parties are definitely liable to refund the price of the Mobile Set in question with new one of same make and model.
- Consequently, the instant complaint succeeds and the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the price value of Mobile Set in dispute of Rs.6500/- to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which the Opposite Parties shall refund the sale price of the Mobile Set in dispute to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing of the order until full and final payment. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for causing mental tension and harassment besides Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. The complaint stands allowed accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum Dated: 03.01.2018. (Rachna Arora) (Anoop Sharma) Member Presiding Member | |
