Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/151

Vijay Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Intex Technology (India) Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

D.S.Walia Adv.

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 151 of 24.02.2016

Date of Decision            :   30.11.2016

 

Vijay Jain son of Sh.Kasturi Chand s/o Kundan Lal resident of property bearing No.B-IV-1711, Mohalla Bandian, Purana Bazar, Ludhiana.

 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Intex Technologies (India) Limited, D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi 110020 through its Chairman/Managing Director/Director/Secretary.

2.Intex Service Centre, Shop No.E-31, Second Floor, Minerva Market, Clock Tower, Ludhiana through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager/Authorized Agent.

3.Soni Gallery, Basant Vihar, Near Panui Wali Tanki, Noorwala Road, Ludhiana through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager/Authorized agent.

 

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS.VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        Sh.D.S.Wahi, Advocate

For OPs                         :        Ex-parte

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant in February 2015, approached OP3 for purchase of mobile phone of Intex Technologies(India) Limited i.e. Op1. OP3 assured that the mobile phone of model Intex Aqua I 5 OCTA is a good product with guarantee of two years. Believing  the representation of OP3 to be true, complainant purchased the mobile phone of Intex Aqua I 5 OCTA bearing IMEI No.91141-56503-01797 make of OP1 from OP3 for Rs.7600/- vide bill No.848 dated 13.2.2015. This mobile worked properly for some period and thereafter, started giving problem, due to which, complainant approached OP3, who referred him to OP2, the service centre by claiming that the mobile is in guarantee period. Complainant approached Op2 on 6.7.2015 for service of the mobile phone, but the latter disclosed as if there is un-removable manufacturing defect in the mobile phone. OP2 disclosed that the only way is to get the mobile replaced. Op2 disclosed that the mobile phone of the complainant will be replaced with new one in a short span and by saying so, Op2 retained the mobile phone of the complainant with him. Complainant claimed that his business will be adversely affected without the mobile phone and as such, OP2 provided another mobile to the complainant with IMEI No.911415650328022 for standby use. Mention qua this made in the job sheet dated 6.7.2015. Thereafter, complainant submitted repeated requests and reminders for replacement with OP2, but OP2 kept on procrastinating the matter. Then within two months i.e. in the month of September, 2015, the other mobile phone given by OP2 as standby also started giving problem and stopped working. Complainant again approached OP2 for complaining about the same and for putting forth the demand of new mobile phone in place of the original mobile phone handed over to the OP2 earlier. OP2 at that time claimed that standby mobile phone given for use of the complainant is also having manufacturing defect. Further, OP2 disclosed that replaced new mobile phone not received from OP1 and as and when, the same received, the same will be handed over to the complainant. Job sheet dated 5.9.2015 in this respect was issued. Thereafter, the complainant kept on visiting OP2 several times, but despite those visits and repeated requests, the defective mobile phone of the complainant with new one mobile phone not replaced. That act of Ops amounts to unfair trade practice and by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops and by claiming that the complainant stood mentally harassed, prayer made for directing Ops to replace the mobile phone of the complainant with new one with fresh guarantee or in the alternative, to return the price of Rs.7600/-. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.8000/- sought along with interest @18% per annum. Even amount of Rs.20,000/- sought on account of spending amount by the complainant under compulsion for the purchase of new mobile.

2.                Ops in this case are ex-parte.

3.                Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and then his counsel closed the ex-parte evidence.

4.                Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard and records gone through carefully.

5.                Contents of invoice Ex.C1 establishes that the complainant purchased Intex Aqua I5 Octa mobile phone with IMEI No. 91141-56503-01797 for consideration of Rs.7600/- on 13.9.2015. Contents of Ex.C2 establishes that     during warranty period, defect in the mobile surfaced because there was no battery backup and charging was not increasing. On account of this, the purchased mobile phone was deposited by the complainant with OP2, the service centre on 6.7.2015. It is  the case of the complainant that standby mobile with IMEI No. 911415650328022 was given to him for use by the OP2 on 6.7.2015, but defect developed in this standby mobile phone even in September 2015 and that is why, this standby mobile phone was deposited with OP2 on 5.9.2015. Contents of Ex.C3 discloses the deposit of the standby mobile phone with above IMEI number with OP2 on 5.9.2015 and as such, it is obvious that the complainant was provided services through standby mobile phone during period from 6.7.2015 to 5.9.2015 only. So, case of the complainant is fully believeable that new replaced mobile phone has not been given to him despite manufacturing defect in the original purchased mobile phone. As the complainant availed services of Ops until 5.9.2015 and as such, virtually the complainant enjoyed the original mobile phone as well as the standby mobile phone for six months and 20 days. Warranty on mobile phone is for one year is a fact known to each and everyone and as such, warranty on the purchased mobile phone was to lapse on 12.9.2016. However, the purchased mobile phone became defective within 5 months of its purchase and that is why the same was deposited with OP2 on 6.7.2015 as disclosed by contents of Ex.C2. So, balance left out period of warranty will be of 7 months only. As the complainant has not been provided new replaced mobile phone despite deposit of the defective mobile phone by him with OP2 and as such, certainly Op concerned provided deficient service to the complainant. There is no condition mentioned in the memo Ex.C2 that warranty will be provided by the service centre and as such, responsibility of replacement of the mobile phone will be remain of all the Ops, being manufacturer, service centre and dealer.

6.                Complainant was provided the services for two months of standby mobile phone and as such, he actually was not harassed for these two months owing to non availability of the services of mobile phone. Even if complainant may have purchased for his convenience another mobile phone of Rs.8000/-, despite that record of that purchased mobile phone is not produced, despite availability and as such for remote event, damages cannot be granted. However, complainant stood harassed owing to repeated visits to the Ops for getting the mobile phone replaced and as such, he is entitled for compensation for mental harassment of an amount of Rs.2000/-. Claim of the complainant for replacement has not been repudiated, albeit matter procrastinated and as such, in view of the fact that none has come to contest the claim of the complainant, complainant entitled for litigation expenses of Rs.1000/- only.

7.                As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed ex-parte in terms that Ops will provide a new replaced mobile set of worth  equal to Rs.7600/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Said replaced mobile set will carry warranty of balance period of 7 months from the date of receipt thereof by complainant. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) more allowed in favour of the complainant and against Ops. Payment of awarded compensation and litigation expenses be also made by Ops within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Liability of Ops will be joint and several. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

8.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                                       (G.K. Dhir)

                                      Member                                                President

Announced in Open Forum                                                          Dated:30.11.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.