Haryana

Ambala

CC/387/2018

Nikhil - Complainant(s)

Versus

Intex Technologies - Opp.Party(s)

Yogesh Sehgal

27 Sep 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  387 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution            :  28.11.2018.

                                                          Date of decision    :  27.09.2019.

 

Nikhil age 17 years, minor, son of Shri Om Parkash resident of House No.2665/1, Near Hari Palace, Ambala City through his real father, natural guardian and next friend of the minor, Om Parkash son of Shri Dharam Pal, resident of House No.2665/1, Near Hari Palace, Ambala City.

                                                                                       …. Complainant.                                                   Versus

1. Intex Technologies (I) Ltd., A-61, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, Delhi-110020 through its Director/Chairman/Incharge.
2. M/S Sunny Communication, Service Centre Intex Mobile, Jai Maa Market, Barnama Road, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City through its Incharge/Proprietor/Owner.

               ..…. Opposite Parties

         

Before:        Smt. Ruby Sharma, Presiding Member,

 Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                  

                            

Present:       Shri Yogesh Sehgal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

OPs No. 1& 2 ex-parte vide order dated 19.04.2019.

 

Order:        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12/18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’), praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund amount of Rs.6,200/-, with interest or to replace the Mobile in question with a new one.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
   382.  

Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone Intex GSM Intex ELYT DUAL (Champ) L-DS vide EMI 911606950437048 for Rs.5,536/- Plus SGST Rs.332/- CGST Rs.332/- total amounting to Rs.6200/- from Hasija Mobile Zone, Shukul Kund Road, Khanna Palace Road, Ambala City vide Bill No.1114 dated 22.06.2018 with warranty period of two years and the amount was paid in cash. After few days of the purchase of mobile in question, the mobile set was not working properly and suddenly “OFF” the mobile set automatically. During the conversation on the mobile in question it became “OFF”. The complainant alongwith his father went to Hasija Mobile Zone, Hasija Mobile Zone told him to go to OP No.2 i.e service centre of Intex Mobile. On 04.07.2018, the complainant alongwith his father went to the OP No.2 and on 07.07.2018, the complainant received the mobile in question, but after next day i.e on 08.07.2018 the mobile set again became suddenly “OFF”. On 09.07.2018, the complainant went to the OP No.2 and told the problem that the Mobile Phone suddenly became “AUTO OFF”, and OP No.2 checked the mobile phone and told that they will repair the mobile phone and will sent to the Intex Company and then he took the mobile phone with him and issued the Job Sheet No.807091007001T001 dated 09.07.2018, in which it has been mentioned that mobile in question is within warranty and said job-sheet was duly signed by the OP No.2. On 13.07.2018 the OP No.2 returned the mobile in question to the complainant after removing the problem. But after three days, the mobile set again became suddenly “OFF” and then immediately the complainant alongwith his father went to the OP No.2 and told the said problem. Then again the OP No.2 and his employees checked the mobile set and again retained the mobile set with them and issued the Job-sheet Number 807161007003T001, dated 16.07.2018 in the name of Om Parkash. The OP No.2 again promised that they will resolved the problem within some days, but after some days, mobile phone in question again became suddenly “OFF” and the complainant was depriving of his right to use the said mobile phone. The complainant alongwith his father Om Parkash again went to the OP No.2 and told him that the mobile in question again becoming suddenly OFF and then again the OP No.2 retained the mobile in question with him and issued the Job sheet No.808101007001T001, dated 10.08.2018 and again promised that the problem of mobile set will be removed very soon. On 04.09.2018 the OP No.2 returned the mobile in question to the complainant, but after few days, it developed the same problem and he contacted the Op No.2, but they flatly refused to remove the problem and threatened him and his father “to do whatever he likes”. The mobile in question is within warranty/guarantee period and has a manufacturing defect, the problem has not been removed and thus the OPs are guilty of deficiency in service as the complainant is consumer and thus the Ops have caused deficiency in service. The complainant also got served a legal notice to the Ops through his counsel, but all in vain. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs before this Forum, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.04.2019.

3.                The learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of Om Parkash son of Shri Dharam Pal, Resident of Ambala City as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-12 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The averments made in complaint regarding defective mobile phone have been corroborated with the evidence. The complainant has also placed on record the Bill No.1114 dated 22.06.2018 total amounting to Rs.6,200/- (Annexure C-1). The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that after some days, the mobile in question was not working properly and suddenly became “OFF” automatically. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 24.09.2018 (Annexure C-7). He further argued that complainant visited OP No.2 to resolve his problem and also submitted mobile in question before OP No.2 vide copies cards issued by OP No.2 (Annexure C-8 & C-9). From the copy of job-sheets (Annexure C-10 to Annexure C-12) it is evident that when the problem in mobile in question was not resolved, complainant went to Op No.1 to resolve his problem and submitted the mobile in question for its repair, but despite several visits before OP No.1, again the problem with the mobile in question was not resolved. However, the Ops have failed to remove the defects in the mobile phone of the complainant. The Ops have not contested the complaint. In this case, the OPs have proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus, we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant, which is duly supported by his affidavit and other supporting documents. Hence, we are of the view that OPs are indulged in an illegal trade practice and also deficient in providing after sale service to the complainant.

6.                     In view of above discussion, the present complaint is deserved to be accepted and same is hereby allowed against the Ops and Ops are directed to comply with jointly and severally the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To replace the faulty mobile phone with new one of the same model. If they are not in position to replace the mobile phone, then to refund the cost of mobile handset amounting Rs.6,200/- alongwith interest @7% per annum, from the date of filing the present complaint, till its realization.

(ii)     To pay compensation a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony.

(iii)    To pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation.

 

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :27.09.2019.

 

                                       (Vinod Kumar Sharma)             (Ruby Sharma)                                           Member                                     Presiding Member