BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.379 of 2016
Date of Instt. 06.09.2016
Date of Decision :04.01.2017
Paramjit age 28 years S/o late. Ratan Lal R/o H. No.730, Arya Samaj Mandir, Garha, Jalandhar City.
..........Complainant
Versus
Kamal Mobile House, Dayanand Chowk, Garha, Jalandhar.
Intex Technologies (India), LTD, D-182, Okhla industrial area, Phase-II New Delhi.
GOPAL TELECOM through its manager, 1st Floor, Nirmal Complex, Namdev Chowk, Jalandhar.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint U/S 12 Read with Section 14 of Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Karan Kumar, Adv. Counsel for complainant.
Opposite Party No. 1, 2 and 3 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that the opposite party No.2 is mobile company dealing in the business of sale of mobile set and the opposite party No.3 is authorized mobile service and repair centre, providing services to the customer on behalf of the opposite party No.2, and acting as the agent/authorized customer service centre and opposite party No.1 is authorized dealer, selling agent of mobile hand sent on behalf of opposite party No.2. The complainant purchased the mobile hand set from the opposite party No.1 through invoice No.2276 dated 26.11.2015 for consideration as such there is relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and opposite parties. As the opposite party No.1 and 3 is working on behalf of opposite party No.2 so the opposite party No.1, 2 and 3 is providing service for consideration and as such there is relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and opposite parties.
2. That the complainant purchased a new mobile set make Intex Aqua Slice II from Kamal Mobile House, Garha, Jalandhar i.e. OP No.1 on 26.11.2015 vide invoice bill No.2276, for which one year warranty is there. It was told to the complainant by seller that if there will be any problem in the working of mobile set, the same will be repaired by service centre, free of cost as per policy of your company. The mobile set started creating problems of charging of battery after seven day of purchasing. Accordingly the complainant approached the authorized service centre i.e. OP No.3 in the month of December. The employee of the service centre returned the mobile hand set after upload the new software as he told the complainant it is a software problem. After two days the complainant realized that the problem in the hand set is not solved by the opposite party No.3. So, the complainant again approach the service centre i.e. opposite party No.3 on 28.01.2016, 27.02.2016, 30.03.2016, 01.04.2016, 09.04.2016, 20.04.2016, 10.05.2016, 23.05.2016, regularly visited by complainant and each time new job sheet was given to complainant by saying that the problem is not still pending. On 23.05.2016 employee of the authorized service centre has given a new job sheet by saying that come on 10.06.2016 your set will be ready. As per the assurance given by the opposite party No.3 the complainant went on 10.06.2016 and approached to the opposite party No.3 and thereafter the complainant was shocked when he reached at the office of the opposite party No.3, the employees of the office of the opposite party No.3 misbehaved with the complainant and abuses the complainant. Moreover they openly told do whatever he can they will not returned back the mobile set. It is the clear case of deficiency in service, used unfair trade practice whereby mental tension and harassment caused to the complainant and accordingly this complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile set and to pay the damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and for monetary loss.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties but despite service, all the opposite parties did not come present and ultimately, they were proceeded against exparte.
4. In order to prove his claim, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA and some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the exparte evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also scanned the file very minutely.
6. After hearing and scanning the case file, it reveals that the complainant has purchased a mobile phone from OP No.1 for sum of Rs.4700/- vide invoice dated 26.11.2015 and photocopy available on the file Ex.C1 and in order to prove that the mobile phone having some mechanical defect and to cure that defect the complainant approached to OP No.3 authorized service centre but OP No.3 failed to rectify the defect which occurred in the mobile phone and ultimately retained the mobile set of the complainant and harassed the complainant thereby. In order to prove there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile set the complainant has also brought on file job sheet Ex.C3 wherein the problem mentioned by mechanic of the opposite party that touch is not working. In order to rectify the claim, it is required to appear but they did not appear. So, under these circumstances the complainant has established on the file there is inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile set and to get it rectify visited the authorized service centre on 28.01.2016, 27.02.2016, 30.03.2016, 01.04.2016, 09.04.2016, 20.04.2016, 10.05.2016, 23.05.2016 and these factum are remains un-rebutted and if the case un-rebutted then there is no earthly ground to discard the version put forth by complainant. So, accordingly we accept the case of the complainant and hold that the complainant is entitled for claim.
7. In view of the above detail discussion, the complaint of the complainant is exparte partly accepted to the effect that the complainant is entitled for replacement of the mobile set and accordingly OPs are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant of the same model and also to pay the damages to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
04.01.2017 Member President
