BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.393 of 2015

Date of Instt. 07.09.2015

Date of Decision :20.11.2015

Jatinder Pal Singh son of Jasbir Singh C/o 63-64 Waryam Nagar, Cool Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Manager and Manager Sales, Intex Technologies (India) Ltd., D-18/2, Okhala Ind.Area, Phase-2, New Delhi-110020.

2. M/s Gopal Telecom, Authorized Service Center for Intex Mobile, EG-796, Mandi Road, Near Railway Station, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Opposite parties exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties and purchased a mobile handset of Intex Company, Mobile Model Aqua Star HD having IMEI No.M-911404200174383 & S-911404200174391 from Mobile House on 19.10.2014 with invoice No.39365. The above said handset is still in warranty period of one year. Unfortunately the battery of above said mobile handset had gone out of order. The complainant contacted to service centre many times since June 2015 but they failed to provide a new battery for his mobile. The complainant contacted with Intex helpline No.1860-108-5555 many times since 21.7.2015 but they also give false assurance to provide the battery within 7 to 10 days and again directed to contact with the service centre. The complainant also sent emails to Intex Company but as per routine they did not bother to the complainant's complaint and failed to provide the battery. The above said mobile handset is useless without its battery. The complainant is ready to pay the full amount for new battery but opposite party failed to provide it. The complainant feels cheated by company as company is responsible to provide accessory after sale. The mobile handset is still in warranty period and accessory is not available in the market even in authorized service centres all over the major cities of Punjab, even in the local market. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for providing a battery for above said mobile handset or to replace it with another one or to refund its price. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed evidence.

4. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person.

5. The complainant purchased Intex Mobile Model Aqua Star for Rs.8000/- from Mobile House vide retail invoice dated 19.10.2014 Ex.C1. The grievance of the complainant is only regarding the battery. In the complaint, he has specifically pleaded that he is ready to pay the full amount for new battery but opposite parties failed to provide it. It is also in his affidavit that the above said handset is still in warranty and unfortunately the battery of above said mobile handset had gone out of order and he contacted to service centre many times since June 2015 but they failed to provide a new battery for his mobile. It is further in his affidavit that he contacted helpline number of the company but they also gave false assurance to provide the battery and again directed to contact with the service centre. It is further in his affidavit that the above said mobile handset is useless without its battery. The complainant has also placed on record emails Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 sent to opposite party No.1 company. Ex.C6 to Ex.C8 are replies sent by the opposite party No.1 i.e Intex Company. Without battery the mobile is useless. Even complainant is ready to pay cost of the new battery but the same is not being provided to him. The complainant contended that the battery of his mobile handset is also not available in the local market. The company marketing the mobile handset of any particular brand is duty bound to ensure that its battery is atleast available in the market. Without battery, the complainant can not use the mobile handset. Non providing or availability of the battery of the mobile handset in question constitute unfair trade practice. So opposite party No.1 company i.e Intex Technologies (India) Ltd is liable to provide the battery to the complainant. He is even ready to pay the full amount i.e price of the new battery as pleaded by him in the complaint.

6. Consequently, the present complaint is accepted against opposite party No.1 and it is directed to provide a brand new battery of the mobile handset of the complainant to him free of cost within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order either itself or through its service centre. Opposite party No.1 or its service centre shall intimate the complainant regarding availability of the battery to him through registered post at the address given in the complaint. The cost of the battery be treated as litigation expenses to the complainant. In case the new battery is not provide to the complainant as aforesaid then opposite party No.1 shall refund the price of the mobile handset to the complainant on receiving old mobile handset from him. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

20.11.2015 Member Member President