DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.438 of 21-07-2014

Decided on 13-10-2014

Boot Singh @ Boota Singh aged about 23 years S/o Gurtej Singh S/o Bachitar Singh R/o Village Pakka Kalan, Tehsil Talwandi Saboo, District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Intex Technologies (India) Limited, D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020, through its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director.

2.Uni Tech (Authorized Service Centre of Intex Technologies (India) Limited), 6383/2481-A, Near Street Bangi House, Old Bus Stand to Mehna Marg, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner.

3.Ashu Telecom (Authorized Dealer of Intex Technologies (India) Limited), Near Gurudwara Sahib, Village Pakka Kalan, Tehsil Talwandi Saboo, District Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

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

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Navneet Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Opposite parties ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Intex Cloud X 2” model mobile handset bearing IMEIs Nos.911324100758152 and 911324100758160 for Rs.3750/- vide bill No.295 dated 4.9.2013 from the opposite party No.3, manufactured by the opposite party No.1 with one year warranty. Soon after the purchase of the abovesaid mobile handset, it started giving the problem of 'Auto Off'. On 7.11.2013, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2, it issued him the job card No.31072026007T001 dated 7.11.2013 and retained the abovesaid mobile handset till 21.12.2013. The complainant started using the abovesaid mobile handset, but after 1-2 days it again started giving the same problem. On 23.12.2013, the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2, it issued him the job card No.312232026021T001 dated 23.12.2013 and retained the mobile handset in question till 18-19/1/2014. On 18-19/1/2014, the opposite party No.2 returned the abovesaid mobile handset to the complainant, he checked the same and found that the problem persisted in the mobile handset in question. On 20.1.2014, the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2, it retained the abovesaid mobile handset vide job card No.401202026009T001 dated 20.1.2014. Since 7.11.2013 the mobile handset in question is lying in the custody of the opposite party No.2. The complainant 30 to 35 times approached the opposite party No.2, but it neither repaired the mobile handset in question nor gave him any satisfactory reply. On 17.7.2014, the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2, its office incharge declared him that the abovesaid mobile handset is non-repairable and conveyed him to get it in the same condition. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 to replace the abovesaid mobile handset with new one, but to no avail. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to replace the mobile handset in question with new one alongwith fresh warranty besides cost and compensation.

2. Registered notice has been sent to the opposite party No.1 vide postal receipt No.A RP376007656IN and opposite party No.3 vide postal receipt No.A RP376007642IN on dated 7.8.2014 and the opposite party No.2 is served by hand but none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties before this Forum despite receiving the summons, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against them.

3. The complainant has led ex-parte evidence to support his allegations. He has produced Ex.C1, his own affidavit dated 19.7.2014; Ex.C2:-Photocopy of bill; Ex.C3:-Photocopy of warranty card; C4:-Photocopy of job card and Ex.C5:-Counsel fee certificate.

4. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel of the complainant heard at length. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the learned counsel of the complainant perused.

5. The mobile handset Intex Cloud X 2” model bearing IMEIs Nos.911324100758152 and 911324100758160 purchased by the complainant for Rs.3750/- vide bill No.295 dated 4.9.2013 became defective soon after its purchase. To support his allegations the complainant has placed on file job card dated 20.1.2014, Ex.C4, in this job sheet the problem is mentioned as 'Auto Off' and warranty status is given as 'In Warranty', in this job sheet various job sheets are mentioned, issued on various dates i.e. 7.11.2013 and 23.12.2013. From these job sheets it is clear that the mobile handset in question is taken to the opposite party

No.2 various times after its purchase. The first job sheet has been issued to the complainant after 2 months of its purchase i.e. 7.11.2013.

6. None of the opposite parties have appeared before this Forum, meaning thereby they intentionally evade the summons and do not find it appropriate to appear before this Forum and file their written statement either separately or jointly, thus they have nothing to say against the allegations levelled by the complainant.

7. The job sheet placed on file, affidavit of the complainant and non-appearance of the opposite parties prove the fact that the allegations made by the complainant are true. The job sheet placed on file and dates mentioned in the job sheets dated 7.11.2013 and 23.12.2013 show that despite various repairs the mobile handset in question was not repaired by the opposite party No.2, thus after repeated repairs the opposite party No.2 has failed to repair the abovesaid mobile handset, which is sufficient to prove that there is some manufacturing defect in it, thus the complainant is entitled for the replacement of the mobile handset in question.

8. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.3. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to replace the mobile handset in question with new one with the same model, specification and brand to the complainant and at the same time the complainant will handover all the accessories of the mobile handset in question to the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. In case, the mobile handset of the same model, specification and brand is not available with the opposite party Nos.1 and 2, in alternative the amount of Rs.3750/- (As per Ex.C2) be refunded to the complainant. The mobile handset in question is already lying with the opposite party No.2 as such no direction can be given to the complainant in this regard.

9. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:- (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

13-10-2014 President

(Sukhwinder Kaur) (Jarnail Singh)

Member Member