DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.55 of 2016

                                         DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 21-03-2016

                                                   DATE OF ORDER: 13-10-2016

Vikash aged 23 years son of Sh. Suresh, resident of Village & Post Office Dinod, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

            ……………Complainant.

VERSUS               

1. Laxmi Enterprises, Near Liberty Showroom, Hansi Gate Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani (Haryana) through its authorized person.

2. Intex Virasat Sales Agency (IPC Bhiwani), Jain Chowk, Near Transformer, Tehsil & District Bhiwani (Haryana) through its authorized person.

3. Intex Technology (India) Ltd., D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 through its Executive Manager/authorized person.

………….. Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: -    Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.

                    Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

Present:-    Complainant in person.

       OPs exparte.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 10.05.2015 he had purchased Intex Mobile, Model YL 1GB, IMEI No. 911437402119566 for a sum of Rs. 4500/- from OP no. 1 with one year warranty.  It is alleged that since very beginning of the purchase of the mobile phone, there was a manufacturing defect as the same was not functioning properly from 10.02.2016 and the same was deposited at Intex Service Centre/OP no. 2 and again it was due to same fault deposited with OP no. 2 on dated 11.03.2016  vide job sheet dated 11.03.2016 and the OP no. 2 returned the mobile after 3 days saying that it could not be repair.   It is alleged that when the complainant visited to the shop of OP no. 1, OP no. 1 misbehaved with the complainant and flatly refused to replace the mobile phone or to get remove the manufacturing defect of the mobile phone and also failed to refund the cost of mobile phone.    The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment as well as financial loss.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint & prayed for change the  mobile set with new one alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. Hence this complaint. 

2.                 OPs have failed to come present.  Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.04.2016.

3.                In order to make out his case, complainant has tendered into evidence Annexure C-1 & Annexure C-2 alongwith supporting affidavit.

4.                 We have heard the complainant in person.  The complainant argued this case himself because the Local Bar has suspended the work.

 5.                The complainant in person reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that on 11.03.2016 he deposited the mobile handset with OP no. 2 vide job sheet dated 11.03.2016 Annexure C-2 for the repairing of the same.  He further stated that the OP no. 2 returned the mobile handset to the complainant but the mobile handset of the complainant was not working properly.  The complainant contended that the mobile handset is not repairable.

6.                We have perused the relevant record.  The mobile handset in question was purchased by the complainant on 10.05.2015 for a sum of Rs. 4500/- from OP no. 1 vide bill Annexure C-1.  As per the contention of the complainant he deposited his mobile handset with OP no. 2 on 11.03.2016, after about 10 months from the date of purchase.  It means the mobile handset was working properly during this period.  The complainant could not bring any material to substantiate his claim that the mobile handset is not repairable.  Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to rectify the defect of the mobile handset of the complainant, by replacing the defective parts, if any.  The Ops are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- to the complainant on account of litigation cost.  This order be complied with by the Ops within 30 days from the date of passing of this order and the complainant is directed to deposit his mobile handset with the Ops for repair.   Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                   

Dated:13-10-2016.                                                             (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                    President,      

                                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                        Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

                    (Anamika Gupta)     

                          Member