BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.385 of 2015

Date of Instt. 02.09.2015

Date of Decision :06.06.2016

Harjeet Singh aged about 58 years son of Dharam Singh R/o 132, Ranjit Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.Mobile House, H.O. Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd., Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.

2.Gopal Telecom, Intex Technologies(I) Ltd., 795-A, near PNB ATM, Near Garden Road, Opp.Mandi Fanton Ganj, Jalandhar.

3. Intex Technologies (India) Limited, D-18/2, Okhla Ind.Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020(India).

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.SP Laddi Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Opposite parties exparte.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties(herein called as OP) on the averments that complainant purchased Intex mobile set from OP No.1 on 27.7.2015 for a sum of Rs.2500/- with warranty of one year. Complainant submitted that the mobile became defective and out of order and the complainant approached OP No.1 who sent the mobile set of the complainant to the service centre i.e. OP No.2 on 28.7.2015 but the service centre could not remove the defect of the mobile phone, rather they returned the mobile set of the complainant through OP No.1. Complainant approached OP No.1 several times and every time OP sent mobile set to OP No.2 authorized service centre for repair of the mobile set of the complainant but OP No.2 could not set-right the mobile set of the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to refund the cost of the mobile set. He has also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Notice of this complaint was given to the OPs but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed evidence.

4. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by complainant with the valuable assistance of Ld.counsel for the complainant.

5. From the averments of the complaint and evidence produced on record by complainant, it stands fully proved on record that complainant purchased Intex mobile set from OP No.1 on 27.7.2015 vide invoice Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.2500/- with warranty of one year as per warranty card Ex.C2. Complainant submitted that the mobile became defective and out of order and the complainant approached OP No.1 who sent the mobile set of the complainant to the service centre i.e. OP No.2 on 28.7.2015 but the service centre could not remove the defect of the mobile phone, rather they returned the mobile set of the complainant through OP No.1. Complainant approached OP No.1 several times and every time OP No.1 sent mobile set to OP No.2 authorized service centre for repair of the mobile set of the complainant but OP No.2 could not set-right the mobile set of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.2 & 3.

6. Complainant proved all his averments in the complaint through his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and he also proved on record the invoice of the mobile set Ex.C1 and warranty card Ex.C2. The evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged as none appeared on behalf of the OPs despite proper service to contest the complaint case of the complainant nor any person from the OP dared to file affidavit to rebut the evidence produced on record by the complainant. So, it stands fully proved on record that the mobile set of the complainant is defective and not working properly and OPs No.2 & 3 failed to remove the defect and set-right the mobile set of the complainant. Resultantly, we hold that the mobile set of the complainant is not repairable. As such, OPs No.2 & 3 are liable to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one.

7. Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint exparte with cost and OPs No.2 and 3 are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund the price of the mobile set to the complainant i.e. Rs.2500/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which OPs No.2 & 3 shall be liable to pay interest @Rs.9/- % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The OPs No.2 & 3 are also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

06.06.2016 Member President