President District Consumers disputes redressal forum, Sambalpur.
Case No. 6 of 2017.
Sunil Kumar Nayak,
S/o Mitrabhanu Nayak,
Aged about 40 years,
At/post-Jharuapara,
Dist:Sambalpur-768001 (Odisha) …………….…. ….. Complainant.
Vrs.
1. Intex Techonology (India Ltd.)
D-18/2 Okhla Industrial area,
Phase II, New Delhi-110020
2. Intex Technology (India)ltd.
G-3 Telecommunication,
Plot No.21A,1st Floor,
BapujiNagar,Bhubaneswar..
- Prakash Informatics
1st lane J.M.Colony, Budharaja,
Sambalpur- 768004 (Odisha)
- M/s Subham Traders. …......................Opp.Parties
For Complainant : Sri A.K. Panigrahi, Sri. K.C. Sarangi
For O.P.s No.1 & 2 & Others : A.K.Patra , B.K. Shroof And associates
PRESENT:- SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT
SMT. S. TRIPATHY, MEMBER
SHRI K.D. DASH, MEMBER
Date of Order: 17/ 04/2019
SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT
The complainant’s case is as follows:-
- Being attracted with wide range of advertisement the complainant have purchased one touch screen mobile hand set of lntex Aqua Trend mobile IME no 911468300582860 from the retailer M/S Subham Traders, Barabazar, Sambalpur on 25.09.2015 on payment of cash of Rs.9400/-(Rupees Nine thousand four hundred) only and towards the said purchase, the retailer issued one owner’s manual with warranty covering one year period for the mobile set along with retailer invoice bearing N0.222 dated 25.09.2015 duly signed on the invoice.
- During the use of the mobile set the touch screen broke suo motto inside the shirt pocket, further the front camera and sensor are not working. Thereafter the complainant went to the retailer and the problem was brought to the notice of the retailer. As per advice of the retailer the complainant deposited the mobile set on 17.08.2016 at Prakash informatics, Sambalpur, the authorized service centre of Intex Mobile and deposited an amount of Rs.1000/-(One thousand) only in advance money towards replacement of the touch screen, bearing service report/ job card No.5625 dated 17.08.2016 as it is within the warranty period of one year.
- Unfortunately the service centre Prakash informatics telephoned on 07.10.2016 and returned the mobile phone set without replacement.
- The complainant served advocate notice to the opposite parties demanding refund of RS.9400/-the purchase price of the mobile hand set along with Rs.1000/- paid towards replacement cost of touch screen but the opposite parties paid no heed.
On the basis of above the complainant prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.9400/- (Rupeesnine thousand four hundred ) only towards purchase price of the mobile set along with Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand ) towards replacement cost of touch screen and RS.5000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards compensation of mental agony, hardship, harassment and inconvenience, so also Rs.5000/-onlytowards cost of litigation expenses and any other relief as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Forum in the facts and circumstances.
List of documents:-
1. Xerox copy of retail invoice dt.25.09.2015
2. Xerox copy of service report of Prakash Informatics dt.17.08.2016
3. Xerox copy of advocate notice dt.21.10.2016
4. Xerox copy of postal receipt
5. Xerox copy of postal AD
Record reveals the all the O.Ps are set ex parte on 28.03.2017. The dates were given and at last on 01.08.2018 the matter was heard ex-parte without participation of the O.Ps.
Heard from the side of complainant. His advocate submitted a written argument and filed 2 case laws. Went through the documents and case law. These are guiding line and instruction to arrive at a just decision in this case.
The complainant deposited the mobile within warranty period along with Rs.1000/- with O.P. no. 3 for repair. It was not repaired nor replaced and returned. The complainant served Advocate notice but to no avail. The complainant is a practicing Advocate and submits that he requires the mobile set for official and non-official reason.
He further submits that the mobile set is having manufacturing defects that is why O.P.No.3 failed to repair the same. O.P.No 3 has not returned the money paid to him.
In 2008(4) CPR 37 para 6 it has been held that “looking into the warranty issued by the company it was the duty of the respondents to provide proper service to the complainant and to remove the defects. If such defects are not removable then to replace the set”.
Taking the above statements as appropriate in this case we hold that the mobile has inherent defect. Hence we order that the company is to replace it withanother defect free mobile or else to pay the purchase pricei.e. Rs.9400/- along with Rs.1000/-the money paidto O.P.No.3,along with a cost of Rs.3000/-.The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to meet the above order.
The O.Ps are jointly & severally liable to meet the above order of RS.13,400/- within a month of passing of this order, otherwise it will carry an interest of 12% @ per annum from date of order till actual payment is made.
Sd/-
SHRI A.P.MUND
Sd/- PRESIDENT.
SMT S.TRIPATHY. Member I agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
SHRI K.D.DASH. Member I agree. Dictated and corrected by me.
PRESIDENT
