Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/50/2016

Yashpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Intex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Nitin Gupta

09 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/50/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	21/01/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	09/08/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Yash Pal Singh S/o Sh. Sham Lal, R/o H.No.110, Sec. 21-A, Chandigarh.

 …………… Complainant.

VERSUS

 

(1)  Intex Technologies Pvt. Limited, D-18/2, Okhla, Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi – 110020, through its Corporate Head/Managing Director (Manufacturer of Mobile Phone).

 

(2)  Intex Service Centre, Quite Office No.11, Ground Floor, Opposite Khukhrain Bhawan, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager (Authorized Repairer of Mobile Phone).

 

(3)  Three Vee Marketing (P) Limited, SCO 1028-1029, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh (Seller of Mobile Phone).

 

……………  Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    DR.MANJIT SINGH            PRESIDENT

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties No.1&2	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For Opposite Party No.3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          The factual matrix in epigrammatic form of the present Complaint are that the Complainant purchased Intex Aqua 3G NS mobile phone for Rs.3,000/- from Opposite Party No.3 vide cash receipt dated 09.11.2015 (Annexure C-1). After a week the mobile phone started giving problems i.e. applications not working, auto restart, hanging, heating etc. Accordingly, the mobile handset was deposited with the Opposite Party No.2 on 17.11.2015 for repairs (Job-Sheet Annexure C-2). However, even after repairs, on facing similar kind of problem, the mobile handset was deposited with the Opposite Party No.2 on 04.12.2015 (Job-Sheet Annexure C-3). Thereafter, the mobile handset worked for 10-15 days only and started giving same problems, upon which it was again deposited with Opposite Party No.2 on 21.12.2015 (Job-Sheet Annexure C-4). Even after third repair, when the problems still persisted, the Complainant had to deposit the handset with the Opposite Party No.2 for repairs on 09.01.2015 (Job-Sheet Annexure C-5). This time also phone was returned after repairs, but the problems were still there, due to which the Complainant had to purchase a new mobile phone. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte on 22.04.2016.

 

3.      OPs No.1 & 2, in their joint reply, while admitting the basic facts of the case, have pleaded that there was no major defect found in the mobile phone in question and requisite services were provided to the Complainant on every occasion he came to the Service Centre by repairing the mobile handset within warranty without charging anything. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the Parties and have perused the record. 

 

7.      After meticulously going through the Complaint of the Complainant and various job-sheets produced on record by him in the shape of Annexure C-2 to C-5, it is an admitted fact that whenever the Complainant approached the Service Centre i.e. Opposite Party No.2, necessary repairs were carried out. Admittedly, there was no occasion when the Opposite Parties refused to repair the handset. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the Opposite Parties were deficient in providing services to the Complainant, at any stage. In general, if any damage is there, during the warranty period, the said product is repaired free of cost, which was, admittedly, done by the Opposite Parties in the present case. Merely because the mobile handset became defective, within few months of its purchase, it cannot be said that there was any manufacturing defect in the handset.

 

8.      Significantly, there is a difference between guarantee and warranty. In case of guarantee, the consumer has right to get the goods/article replaced if there is a defect in the same. However, in case of warranty, the customer has only right to get his/her goods/article repaired and he/she has no right to get the goods/article replaced. In case of warranty, the consumer cannot compel the Dealer/ Manufacturer or the Service Provider to replace his/her goods/article and the only right available to him/her is to get the goods/ product repaired.  Similar is the position in the present case. Since necessary repairs were provided as and when required or reported, therefore, we are of the concerted view that neither there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties nor the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. Moreover, the Complainant has failed to place on record any cogent and convincing document to show that it was the duty of the Opposite Parties to replace the mobile handset if some problem had occurred in it. Thus we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Party. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

 

9.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint deserves dismissal. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.      

 

10.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

09^th August, 2016                                            

 

Sd/-

[DR.MANJIT SINGH]

PRESIDENT

                                               

Sd/-                         

[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]                                                                                                   

“Dutt”                                                                           MEMBER