BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.349/16.
Date of instt.: 24.11.2016.
Date of Decision: 11.08.2017.
Krishan aged 45 years, S/o Manphool Singh, R/o Village Sisla Sismore, Tehsil & District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Intex Technology (India) Ltd., C/o Shri Ganesh Telecom, 550/8, Latka Street near Shastri Market, Kaithal-136027 (Service-Centre).
- Narang Mobile Shop, Shop No.3, Palika Bazar, Kaithal (Shop-keeper).
- Intex Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd., D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Sanjeev Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Mukesh Banal, Advocate for the Op No.1.
Ops No.2 & 3 already exparte.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a mobile set Intex, Model Aqua Power Plus bearing IMEI No.911442505320186 for sum of Rs.7100/- from Op No.2 vide invoice No.12481 dt. 18.12.2015. It is alleged that after about nine months of its purchase, the mobile set became defective and was not working properly. It is further alleged that on 25.10.2016, the complainant got deposited the mobile set in question with the Op No.1 but the Op No.1 did not remove the defects from the said mobile set. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared before this forum, whereas Ops No.2 & 3 did not appear and were proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 10.01.2017. Op No.1 filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; time-barred; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this forum. The true facts are that the complainant visited to the Op No.1 on 25.10.2016 for the problem regarding the charging as per voice of the complainant and the answering Op had provided the best services to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and closed evidence on 02.05.2017. On the other hand, the Op No.1 did not tender any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of Op No.1 was closed vide court order dt. 12.07.2017.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question on 18.12.2015 and the same became defective within the warranty period with the problem of “charging”. He further argued that on 25.10.2016, the complainant got deposited the mobile set with the Op No.1 but the Op No.1 did not remove the defects from the said mobile set. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Op No.1 argued that the complainant visited to the Op No.1 on 25.10.2016 for the problem regarding the charging as per voice of the complainant and the Op No.1 had removed the defects from the mobile set and returned the same to the complainant and due to this reason, the complainant has produced the photo-stat copy of job-sheet as the original has been returned to the Ops.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, we found that the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant on 18.12.2015 and the same became defective within the warranty period, as is clear from the job-sheet dt. 25.10.2016, Ex.C2, wherein in the column of problem reported, the defects have been shown “Charging related problem”. The complainant has filed the present complaint in this forum on 24.11.2016 i.e. within the warranty period. The grievance of the complainant is that the defects were not removed by the Ops despite the fact that the same was within warranty period. No doubt, the complainant has placed on the file photo-copy of job-sheet but the Ops have not produced the original job-sheet from which it can be proved that the mobile set was repaired to the satisfaction of complainant. Besides the above-said job-sheet, the complainant has supported his versions by affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and original bill dt. 8.12.2015, Ex.C1. Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops No.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte, whereas Op No.1 did not tender any evidence, so, the evidence of Op No.1 was closed vide court order dt. 12.07.2017. So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the Ops. Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Ops have not removed the defects completely from the mobile set in question, hence, they are deficient in providing services to the complainant.
7. During the arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant stated that the complainant has purchased a new mobile set and the mobile set, if replaced by the Ops is of no use for the complainant, so, in the interest of justice, the cost of mobile set may please be ordered to got returned from the Ops. We found force in this contention of the complainant because the defects were not removed by the Ops. In this regard, we can rely upon the authority decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana bearing first appeal No.460 of 2014 decided on 28.05.2014 titled as Deepjot Singh Vs. The Mobile Store. So, keeping in view the above citation, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will be met if the cost of mobile set be ordered to be refunded after making 50% depreciation of the same.
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.3550/- the cost of the mobile set after deducting 50% depreciation i.e. (Rs.7100/- less Rs.3550/-=Rs.3550/-), subject to deposit of mobile set and other accessories with the service-centre of Ops. No order as to costs. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of order till its payment. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.11.08.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
