Delhi

North West

CC/739/2016

SUBODH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

INTEX TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST

       GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

CC No: 739/2016

D.No.__________________         Date: ________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

SUBODH KUMAR S/o SH. R.K. PUNIA,

R/o A-A/84, SHALIMAR BAGH,

DELHI-110088. … COMPLAINANT

         

 

Versus

 

1.INTEX TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD.,

D-18/2, OKHLA INDL. AREA,

    PH-II, NEW DELHI-110020.

 

2. DIGITECH,

    B-6/219, 1^ST FLOOR, SECTOR-7,

    ROHINI, DELHI-110085.

 

3. SOHAM TELECOM,

 BN-5, DDA MARKET,

    SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.                  … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)

 

 

CORAM :SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

                SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

      MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER

                                                  Date of Institution: 30.07.2016

                                               Date of decision:08.02.2018

 

SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

ORDER

1.       The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under the Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that on 15.11.2015 the complainant purchased an Aqua

CC No. 739/2016                                                    Page 1 of 5

          Trend mobile phone for a sum of Rs.9,500/- vide bill no. 18747 dated 15.11.2015 from OP-3 and in the month of June-2016, the said mobile phone started problem with its touch and receiver voice not clear hence the complainant on 06.07.2016 approached OP-2 and submitted said mobile phone for repairs and the complainant further alleged that at the time of submitting its mobile requested OP-2 to repair the same at the earliest (as being a professional it is impossible to manage the work without mobile) which is today’s lifeline of business and OP gave 15 days time for repair and further though the complainant asked for a substitute mobile but OP clearly refused for same. The complainant further alleged that the complainant waited for his mobile since 06.07.2016 till date but the OPs have literally failed to repair the same and the complainant was having problems for his business.Hence on 21.07.2016, the complainant mailed a legal notice to the OPs but even after receiving the same,OPs neither bothered to repair the complainant’s mobile nor replied to legal notice. OPs literally failed to repair the complainant’s mobile till 28.07.2016, the complainant was constrained to purchase a new Samsung mobile phone to avoid his further business losses and the complainant further alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

CC No. 739/2016                                                                        Page 2 of 5

2.       On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to pay Rs.9,500/- being the price of mobile phone as well as to pay Rs.2,500/- per day from 06.07.2016to 28.07.2016 i.e. Rs.60,000/- till realization and has also sought compensation of Rs.1 lakh for causing mental harassment, agony and torture. The complainant has also sought Rs.16,900/- against the cost of new mobile phone.

3.       Notices to OPs were issued through speed post for appearance on 27.09.2016 and the notices to OP-1, OP-2 & OP-3 were served on 17.08.2016 as per track reports. But none for the OPs appeared on 27.09.2016 & 08.12.2016 and as such OPs have been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.12.2016.

4.       In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of bill invoice no. 18747 dated 15.11.2015 issued by OP-3, copy of job sheet/service request no. 607061002010T001 dated 06.07.2016 and copy of legal notice dated 06.07.2016 sent by the complainant to OP through e-mail.

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 remainedconsistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Moreover, it appears that even after receiving notice of

CC No. 739/2016                                                                        Page 3 of 5

this case from this forum, the OPs have kept mum and have not bothered to answer the case of the complainant. It seems that OPs have no defence at all in their favour.

6.       On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant had purchased an Intex Aqua Trend mobile handset from OP-3. When the mobile handset became defective it was deposited at OP-2 i.e. service center for repairing but OP-2 failed to repair the mobile handset of the complainant and did not offer a standby old handset. The job sheet dated 06.07.2016 filed by the complainant issued by OP-1& OP-2 proves the defect in the mobile handset as ‘touch not working& receiver voice not clear’. OP-1 & OP-2 failed to rectify the defects of the mobile handset of the complainant which has occurred in the mobile handset and it is still lying at OP-2 but the problem could not be resolved. It was the duty of the OPs to rectify thedefect once for all or to replace the product. A customer/consumer is not expected to file complaints frequently in respect of new product purchased. It is expected that the new product purchased is free from all sorts of defect in the product. Accordingly, OP-1 & OP-2are held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

7.       Accordingly, OP-1 & OP-2 jointly or severally are directed as under:

i)        To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.9,500/- being the cost of the mobile handset.

CC No. 739/2016                                                                        Page 4 of 5

ii)       To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,500/- as compensation towards mental agony and  harassment caused to the complainant which includes cost of litigation.

8.       The above amount shall be paid by the OP-1 & OP-2 jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-1 & OP-2 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% perannum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1 & OP-2 fail to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, thecomplainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 9.      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 8^thday of February, 2018.

 

BARIQ AHMED                 USHA KHANNA               M.K. GUPTA

(MEMBER)                            (MEMBER)                   (PRESIDENT)

 

 

 

 

CC No. 739/2016                                                                        Page 5 of 5