Delhi

North East

CC/354/2015

Arif Ahmad - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

14 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 354/15

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Arif Ahmad H.No. F-481, Gali No. 16, Chand Bagh, Delhi 110094		Complainant
		Versus
	1       2       3	M/s. Intex Technology India Ltd. D-18/2, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-2, New Delhi-110020   M/s. Lovely Husain Mobile Centre Shop No. 1, Hasnain Market, Main Road, Old Mustafabad, Delhi 110094   M/s H&T Services C-4/8, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		12.10.2015
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		14.11.2018
			DATE OF DECISION      :		14.11.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed by complainant against OPs alleging deficiency in service. The facts of the complaint are that the complainant on 06.05.2015 has purchased a Mobile Phone from OP2 manufactured by OP1. Just using the mobile phone for one month & five days, some problems were noticed in the mobile phone. Immediately complainant approached OP3 for repairing the same. And on advise of OP3, complainant visited OP2 on 11.06.2015. OP2 deposited his mobile phone and assured complainant to collect the same after 4-5 days. OP2 issued a job sheet card vide no. 362 dated 11.08.2015 against deposit mobile phone and charged Rs. 350/- for repairs from the complainant. After 4-5 days, complainant sent his father to collect the mobile phone but OP2 misbehaved with father of complainant and gave evasive response for which a police complaint with PS Bhajanpura had to be lodged by father of complainant. The complainant had attached a copy of job sheet vide no. 362 dated 11.08.2015, retail invoice no. 1411 dated 06.05.2015 amounting to Rs. 990/-, copy of complaint to S.H.O., P.S. Bhajanpura vide diary no. 83-B dated 14.08.2015 against OP2.
2. Notices were issued to OPs on 12.10.2015 which were served to OP1 & OP3 on 19.10.2015 and to OP2 on 23.10.2015 but due to constant non appearance of OPs, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.12.2015
3. Complainant filed his Ex-parte evidence and written arguments on 18.04.2018 & 14.08.2018 respectively where he reiterated the grievance made out against the OP in the complaint.
4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and have also gone through the evidence submitted by complainant in support of his contention.
5. We are of the view that in the absence of any rebuttal by the OPs the complainant has succeeded in establishing the case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs in selling a defective mobile phone to complainant and failed to repair the same and returned the same despite having charged for it. Hence, we hold OPs guilty of deficiency in service and direct all OPs jointly and severally to refund the entire amount of mobile phone i.e. Rs. 990/-. We also directed to all the OPs, jointly and severally to pay Rs. 2000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony to complainant
6. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

10.       File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 14.11.2018)          

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member