The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the dealer situated at Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar, O.P No.2 is the authorized Service Centre of Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. situated at Station Road, Balasore and O.P No.3 is the Head Office of O.P No.1 and 2, represented by its M.D situated at Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110020.
The hub of the dispute is that the Complainant had purchased one Mobile GSM AQUA XTREME (GREY) DUAL SIM bearing Model No.A-2199-1071-1 from the O.P No.1 on 21.02.2015 vide its invoice No.5219008829 on payment of Rs.9,180/- (Rupees Nine thousand one hundred eighty) only and the O.P No.1 handed over the warranty card, covering from 21.02.2015 to 20.02.2016. But on 04.08.2015, the said mobile set due to some technical problems became blank in display. As per advice of the O.P No.1, the Complainant had been to O.P No.2 for service/ repair of his mobile set. On verification, the O.P No.2 assured the Complainant to take delivery the repaired mobile after 7 days. The Complainant was not able to receive the repaired mobile from O.P No.1, as they did not receive the same from their Head Office, as per the information given by the staff of O.P No.1. Lastly on 04.09.2015, the O.P No.2 offered another mobile model Xtreme-II, but the Complainant found that the facilities available in first mobile is not available in replaced mobile, hence refused to take. The Complainant demanded for first mobile, but the O.P No.2 strongly refused and did not deliver the first mobile set. Non-repair/ replacement of the defective mobile within the warranty period caused deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. The Complainant is also harassed and caused to mental agony. Prayer for repair/ replacement of the defective mobile along with compensation and cost of litigation.
The O.P No.1 and 3 neither remained present personally nor have represented through their Advocates, hence the O.P No.1 and 3 are set ex-parte on 26.05.2016.
Written version filed by the O.P No.2 through their Advocate, where they have denied about the cause of action. They have admitted to the extent that it is a fact, the O.P No.2 is the Service Centre of Intex Mobiles. On dt.06.08.2015, he received a swap mobile GSM AQUA Xtreme (Grey) dual sim from the Complainant for service. The problem reported by the Complainant was display problem. This defendant was not rectified by O.P No.2 for that reason. On dt.10.08.2015, he sent the said mobile set along with other mobile to the O.P No.1 for repairing through falcon courier. On dt.31.08.2015, O.P No.1 has send new mobile set in replace of defect mobile set. The new mobile set is mobile GSM AQUA XTREME 11 (CHAMP) DUAL SIM bearing EMI No.911446150242082. Thereafter, O.P No.2 informed the Complainant to receive his replacement new mobile. However, the Complainant has not received the same from O.P No.2, which is reflected in Job sheet Serial No.8679, dt.04.09.2015, for that reason the O.P No.2 intimated this fact to the O.P No.1. Finally the O.P No.2 send the new replacement mobile to the O.P No.1 through delivery chalan by way bill No.0074088, dt.28.10.2015 through FALCON courier and the same was received through falcon courier bearing AWB No.0074088. On dt.01.11.2015, the O.P No.2 has received another mobile set bearing EMI No.911428652677239 having more extra facilities than the replacement mobile. The O.P No.2 requested many times to the Complainant to take his replacement mobile as per job sheet dt.06.08.2015. In the other hand, the Complainant with an ulterior motive has not received the said new mobile from the O.P No.2. In order to harass the O.P No.2, the Complainant has foisted the above mentioned case against the O.P No.2. But the O.P No.2 has not committed any deficiency of service towards the Complainant. In view of the above fact and circumstances, the above mentioned case of the Complainant has no merit and it is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.
The O.P No.2 has filed the written argument, where it is submitted that O.P No.2 is the authorized agent of servicing of the mobile set. If the defect reflected in the mobile set is beyond his control, then he has to inform to O.P No.1 to rectify the technical problems in the said set. It is also submitted that the Complainant has purchased this mobile set from O.P No.1 and the O.P No.3 is the manufacturer Company of the said mobile set. It is the duty of O.P No.1 and 3 to settle the claim of the Complainant.
The Complainant has submitted copy of invoice dt.21.02.2015, warranty card and service job sheet dt.04.09.2015 in support of his claim.
On perusal of the documents available in the case record, it is noticed that the O.P No.2 has received another mobile set from O.P No.1 having more extra facilities than the replacement mobile. The O.P No.2 requested many times to the Complainant to take his replacement mobile. On the other hand, the Complainant with an ulterior motive has not received the said new mobile from the O.P No.2. Thus, it is concluded that the mobile purchased on 21.02.2015 by the Complainant is a defective one. The O.P No.2 is ready to replace the same mobile and accordingly, he has requested many times to the Complainant to take his replacement mobile. Hence, the Order:-
O R D E R
Having all regards to our judgment reflected above, the complaint bears merit with direction to the O.Ps to replace the same mobile with a new (same brand and make) mobile set with further extension of warranty period within 60 days of communication of this Order. The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only to the Complainant, being the compensation for mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 29th day of September, 2016 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
