Delhi

North East

CC/426/2015

Asif Ahmad - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

28 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. 426/15

                   

In the matter of:

 

	Asif Ahmad S/o Shri Suleman Khan R/o F-481, Gali No. 16, Near Islam Masjid, Chand Bagh, Delhi-110094.	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.           3.	Intex Technologies Ltd D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi-110020.   M/s M.S.A. Traders Pvt Ltd Khasra No. 47/19/2, 10/1, 11/2/1, 12/12/12, 19/2, 20/1, Taj Nagar, Village Tehsil Farukh Nagar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana- 123503.   M/s Intex H&T Service (I.C.C Yamuna Vihar) C-4/8, Yamuna Vihar, Opposite C-5 Market, Delhi-110053	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

29.10.2015 28.11.2018 28.11.2018

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Brief facts relevant to the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased an Intex Aqua 3G mobile manufactured by OP1 vide order no. 20150814087905 from OP2 seller / courier agency on 16.08.2015 for Rs. 3299/- vide invoice no. 201508161707.  However the subject mobile functioned for only two days and the complainant lodged a written complaint with the customer care of OP1 on 18.08.2015, 24.08.2015 and 26.08.2015 for replacement of the defective mobile. However the same was not entertained and the complainant deposited his mobile with OP3, service centre of OP1 on 16.09.2015 vide Service request / jobsheet no. 509165988033T001 on payment of  Rs. 1250/- for repair to which the complainant was informed by customer care of OP1 that they would  give a new mobile in lieu of the defective one. However, despite repeated follow-ups with OP3 and OP1, the complainant could not get his mobile back from OP3 service centre which declined to return the same and for which reason the complainant had to face financial and mental hardship and therefore vide the present complaint, the complainant has prayed for issuance of directions against the OPs for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses, financial loss, mental agony and tension suffered at the behest of OPs.

Complainant has attached copy of retail invoice dated 16.08.2015 for purchase of subject mobile on COD and copy of service request/jobsheet dated 16.09.2015 issued by OP3 for deposit of subject mobile for repair with problem reported ‘handset is dead touch broken’.

2. Notices were issued to OPs. Notice sent to OP2 was received back with postal remark ‘refused’, therefore deemed service and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.01.2016. OP1 and OP3 had offered a new sealed pack handset with full warranty to complainant towards full and final settlement of the case before proceedings of this Forum dated 03.03.2016 and the matter was put up before National Lok Adalat on 12.03.2016 when the complainant refused to accept the mobile phone and claimed litigation expenses for which reason the settlement failed. OP1 and OP3 did not filed written statement despite several opportunity given and therefore their defence closed vide order dated 10.05.2016.
3. Complainant has filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments on 06.06.2016 and 25.01.2017. On 18.01.2018, the counsel for OP1 and OP3 made an offer to the complainant before this Forum to refund the entire cost of mobile phone or replace the same with an upgraded model and the matter was posted for settlement before National Lok Adalat on 10.02.2018 on which date the complainant does not appear and OP1 and OP3 submitted that they shall sent an offer letter of settlement to the complainant in writing. However, in the subsequent hearings none appeared on behalf of OP1 and OP3 and no compliance of undertaking given before this Forum on 18.01.2018 and 10.02.2018 was made by OP1 and OP3 and therefore the matter was posted for oral arguments which were addressed by the complainant alone through counsel.
4. We have heard the arguments advanced by the complainant and peruse the documentary evidence placed on record as also the court proceedings in the present matter.

The complaint was filed in the end of October 2015, admitted in November 2015 and after two hearings on 08.12.2015 and 21.01.2016, the OP1 and OP3 had made an offer of settlement by way of replacement of the defective mobile with a brand new handset with full warranty in a sealed box in March 2016 which the complainant refused to accept in National Lok Adalat seeking litigation expenses for having engaged counsel in the present complaint. However, after the pendency of proceedings for almost two years when the OP1 and OP3 were conspicuous by their absence from April 2016 to October 2017, they suddenly resurfaced on 18.01.2018 and made an offer of refund of the cost of the mobile or replacement thereof with a upgraded model and undertook before the National Lok Adalat held on 10.02.2018 to send the offer letter of settlement to the complainant in writing to this effect. However OP1 and OP3 again disappeared March 2018 onwards till the matter was finally heard in terms of final arguments in November 2018 and reserved for orders. The said conduct speaks volumes of non sincerity of purpose and intent and non committal attitude of OP1 and OP3 towards arriving at amicable settlement which could have been effected keeping in view of the admitted fact that the subject mobile could only last a month of its purchase and was rendered useless thereafter never to be returned by OP3 to the complainant. However, one cannot ignore the fact that the OP1 and OP3 had brought a brand new mobile phone by way of replacement as settlement offer in March 2016 which was declined by complainant.

5. In our considered opinion, due to continuous and long absence of OP1 and OP3 and no diligence shown for settlement or defence in the present case, we hold all the OPs as Manufacturer, Seller and service centre jointly and severally liable for deficiency of service against the complainant for having sold a defective mobile handset and failing to repair and return the same despite having charged the complainant. We therefore direct all the OPs jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as all inclusive compensation for refund of cost of mobile phone, litigation expenses, financial loss, mental agony and tension suffered by him. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on 28.11.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member