Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 109.
Instituted on : 09.03.2018.
Decided on : 27.07.2018.
Rajesh Kumar s/o Om Parkash R/o 495/20 Preet Vihar Colony Rothak Age 42 Mobile No.9017440579.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Aggarwal Enterprises Shop no.49 Palika Bazaar Rohtak.
- Intex mobile service centre SCO No.189 1st Floor HUDA Complex Rohtak.
- Intex technologies corporate & registered office A61 Okhala Industrial area phase 2 New Delkhi 110020.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Kamal Gagneja Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a mobile phone model Intex Aqua for a sale consideration of Rs.9000/- on dated 09.02.2017. That in the month of April the above said mobile was not working properly and he informed the OPs but the problems could not be resolved. That complainant deposited the handset time and again with the opposite party no.2 on various dates and the mobile set is under custody of service centre. That complainant requested the OPs either to refund the price or to replace the same but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to make the payment of Rs.9000/- alongwith interest besides compensation qua mental harassment etc. and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to OP No.1 & 2 received back served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 & 2. Opposite party No.3 also did not appear despite notice through registered post and as such opposite party No.1 to 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.04.2018 of this Forum.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 09.02.2017 and the defect in the mobile set appeared within warranty period. But as per copy of job sheet placed on record, the mobile could not be repaired by the opposite parties and the same is in the possession of service centre. On the other hand, opposite parties have not appeared before this Forum for the rebuttal against the pleadings of the complainant placed on the file and remained exparte in the present case. As such all the allegations leveled against the opposite parties regarding the manufacturing defect in the mobile set stands proved. As the complainant has lost faith in the company and its products so it is better to refund the price of mobile phone after deduction of 20% depreciation on it.
6. Accordingly the complaint succeeds and it is directed opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set by deducting 20% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.7200/-(Rupees seven thousand two hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 09.03.2016 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses and compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. The mobile in question is already in the possession of service centre.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
27.07.2018.
................................................
Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
..........................................
Ved Pal, Member.
