BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 595 of 2015
Date of Institution: 24.9.2015
Date of Decision :21.04.2016
Sh. Baljeet Singh S/o S. Nirmal Singh age 46 years r/o H.No. 302, Ajad Nagar, Near Deep Bakery 100ft Road, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Intex Technology India Ltd., through its Chairman/Manager D/18/2 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 2, New Delhi
- Perfect Mobile Repair Center, through its Prop. Vinay Sharma, Shop No. 19-20, Simran Plaza Market, 210-A, Queens Road, Amritsar
- M/s. Mobile Plaza through its Prop./Partner, Hall Bazar, Amritsar
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 11/12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Kanwar Pahul Singh,Adv.
For the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 : Ex-parte
For Opposite party No.3 : Sh.Deepinder Singh,Adv.
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Baljeet Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant purchased Intex Mobile from opposite party No.3 worth Rs. 8200/- on 20.6.2015 model Aqua Speed 911437900001324 and there was a guarantee for one year and receipt to that fact is attached. Immediately after the purchase of the mobile set in dispute , it was found that it was defective. The mobile phone set was submitted to opposite party No.2 vide complaint No. 508035929042T001 and the complainant got an SMS on 3.8.2015 that mobile has been repaired but unfortunately the same was not in proper order and the defect was not removed by the opposite parties. Again the complainant approached opposite party No.2 for the same defect vide complaint No. 508265929006T001 and again the complainant received an SMS on 26.8.2015 that the handset has been repaired. But , however, the same was not in order. The complainant also made a complaint that colour of the handset has also been faded and opposite party No.2 told the complainant that the mobile hand set in dispute is beyond the scope of repairs. The complainant approached the opposite parties number of time , but opposite parties did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant nor handed over the mobile hand set in dispute to the complainant despite repeated demands. There is clear negligence in performing the duty on the part of the opposite parties and due to this act of omission , the complainant has suffered great harassment, mental agony and has also suffered physical and economic loss and the complainant on that account require compensation worth Rs. 50000/- . Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1,2 & 3 duly served. However, none put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2. However, opposite party No.3 filed written reply contesting the claim of the complainant taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint and this complaint is an abuse of the process of law. The complaint being false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed by invoking section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act ; that replying opposite party No.3 is only a selling dealer and the warranty obligations , if any are to be provided by the remaining opposite parties and there is no defect in the sale of the product and as such the present complaint is not maintainable against the replying opposite party. On merits, factum of sale of the product is an admitted fact. The remaining facts mentioned in complaint have been denied being false and frivolous . No complaint has ever been lodged by the complainant with the replying opposite party. It is denied that there are job sheets with the complaint. It is stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed being false and frivolous.
3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant made into the witness box and filed duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint. Complainant also produced documents i.e copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of complaints made by the complainant Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence, opposite party No.3 produced affidavit of Sh. Manjit Singh,prop. of Mobile Plaza Ex.OP3/1 and closed his evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for both the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. The sale of the mobile hand set in dispute is an admitted fact and in its reply, opposite party No.3 has candidly admitted the said fact. However, opposite party No.3 cannot be blamed for the lapse on the part of the opposite parties No.1 & 2. Opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer while opposite party No.2 is the service provider. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not opt to appear and contest the complaint, which means and imply that opposite parties No.1 & 2 have impliedly admitted the case of the complainant. The job sheet Ex. C-4 goes to show that the mobile handset in dispute was retained by opposite party No.2 for the purpose of repair and the same has not been returned to the complainant so far after making necessary repairs, despite repeated requests made by the complainant. Although the defects pointed out by the complainant in the mobile handset in dispute cannot be termed to be manufacturing defects in the gadget , yet opposite parties No.1 & 2 are under legal obligation as well as warranty to repair the mobile handset in dispute to the satisfaction of the complainant, which they have miserably failed to do. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in our considered opinion opposite parties No.1 & 2 are under legal and contractual obligation to repair the mobile handset in dispute to the satisfaction to the complainant without charging any amount from him. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed to do the needful within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are also burdened with compensation to the tune of Rs. 2000/- and litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 1000/-. If no compliance of the order is made within the stipulated period, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of the passing of the order until full and final recovery. Complaint against opposite party No.3 stands dismissed. The complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. The complaint stands allowed accordingly. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 21.4.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member
