DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.466 of 22.11.2016
Decided on: 29.3.2017
Baljinder Singh aged 30 years approx. son of Sh.Jarnail Singh # 61/3, Guru Nanak Nagar, Beckman Factory, Patiala-147001 Punjab.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Intex Technologies (1) Limited D-18/2, Akhla Industrial Area, Phase-II,
New Delhi 110020 India through its Authorized agent.
2. Intex Sonu Mobile Care (ICP) Patiala, Gandhi Market, near Lahori Gate,
Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Baljinder Singh, complainant in person.
Opposite Parties ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
- The complainant purchased one mobile phone GSM AQUMA 4G (Black) Dual SIM having Sr.No.911445150064629 from Jyoti Telecom 22 No.Phatak, Patiala, in the month of January,2016. It is averred that in the month of March, some technical issue arose in the mobile phone and the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.2 on 16.3.2016. OP assured the complainant that since mother board of the mobile phone was not working properly, it will rectify the problem. Thereafter, OP told the complainant that as the mobile phone had developed an irreparable technical problem, so it handed over another mobile phone bearing Sr.No.911445150348964 to the complainant. After some time, the mobile set which was given in return of the old mobile phone developed the same problem which occurred in the earlier mobile phone and the complainant deposited the same with OP no.2 on 9.5.2016. The complainant being a labourer visited OP no.2 to repair the mobile phone .But OP no.2 neither repaired nor returned the same to the complainant which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Ultimately, the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act( for short the Act),1986.
- On notice, OPs failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against exparte.
- In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
- The complainant failed to file written arguments. We have heard the complainant in person and have also gone through the evidence on record.
- Ex.C5 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased a mobile phone for a sum of Rs.6800/- on 9.1.2016.Ex.C1 is the job sheet dated 16.3.2016, vide which the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.2. OP no.2 handed over another mobile phone to the complainant by telling him that his mobile phone had developed an irreparable technical problem. Again the swapped mobile phone started giving problem and the com plainant deposited it with OP no.2 on 9.5.2016 vide job sheet i.e. Ex.C2. Sin ce 9.5.2016, the mobile phone is lying with OP no.2 who has neither rectified the problem nor returned it to the complainant which amounted to deficiency in service on its part. Moreover, failure on the part of the OPs to contest the claim of the complainant shows their indifferent attitude to redress the grievance of the complainant.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OPs i.e. OPs No.1&2 to replace the mobile phone of the complainant with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.6800/- to the complainant. OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith Rs.3000/- as litigation costs. Order be complied by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 30days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:29.3.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
