BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                                    Complaint No: 740 of 30.10.2014.

                                                                   Date of Decision: 22.07.2015

Rahul Joshi alias Ram Didar son of Shri Surinder Kumar, resident of House No.142-B, New Hira Nagar, Kakowal Road, Street No.2, Ludhiana.

.… Complainant

Versus 

1. M/S. Customer Care Cell Intex Technologies (India) Limited, D-18/2, Okhla Ind. Area Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 (India)

2. M/S. Balaji Electronics, Shop No.60, Bhadaur House, Near Chawla Chicken, Ludhiana.

3. M/S. Gupta Music Café, Shop No.1, Hotel Lee Classic Tower, Mata Rani Road, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

Quorum:    Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                             Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

Present:      Sh. Sanjay Vashishta, Advocate for complainant.

                   Opposite party  Nos.1 and 2 exparte. 

                   Sh. Dalip Kumar Sareen, Advocate for OP3.

ORDER

 (SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed Rahul Joshi alias Ram Didar son of Shri Surinder Kumar, resident of House No.142-B, New Hira Nagar, Kakowal Road, Street No.2, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against M/S. Customer Care Cell Intex Technologies (India) Limited, D-18/2, Okhla Ind. Area Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 (India) and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)-  with a prayer to issue directions to the OPs to replace mobile set of Intex I-5 colour white bearing IMEI No.911316200765632 with another new set or to refund the amount of set amounting to Rs.11,200/- along with interest @ 18% per annum besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental tension and agony.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that on 01.11.2013, the complainant made his mind to purchase one mobile set of Nokia or Samsung and he visited OP3 where agent/salesman of OP3 induced/compelled the complainant to purchase mobile set of Intex I-5 and started appreciating the qualities of Intex I-5 perhaps OP3 was having good margin in that very set and the complainant purchased the mobile set of Intex I-5 from OP3 on again and again compelling/asking by said agent./salesman of OP3, vide invoice No.16917 dated 01.11.2013 for a sum of Rs.11,200/- bearing IMEI No.911316200765632. The said mobile started giving trouble few days after its purchase and camera of said set was not working, said set started hanging and speaker of said set were not working properly and volume was also not good and overall the said set was not working properly and the complainant apprised the said fact to OP3 and OP3 asked the complainant to contact the service centre i.e. OP2.  On 13.08.2014, the complainant approached OP2 and OP2 told him to collect the set after getting it repaired from their head office within few days, otherwise, they would provide new mobile se to complainant and OP2 issued service job sheet No.408135329011T001 dated 13.08.2014 to the complainant. The complainant many a times visited OP to know the status  of his mobile but OP2 failed to give satisfactory reply and started making lame excuses one after the other. Thus, claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OP1 and OP2 but they failed to put in appearance despite due service and thus, were proceeded against exparte. However, OP3 appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and no cause of action arose to file the present complaint against the OP and the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, denied the contents of corresponding paras of complaint being wrong and denied and further denied that any agent of OP3 ever induced or compelled the complainant to purchase the mobile set of Intex I-5. It is alleged that the complainant himself with his own wish and will without any type of inducement or compelling circumstances, purchased the same from of his own and after selecting the mobile set, purchased the same. Otherwise also every customer purchases the goods at his or her sweet will. While issuing the cash memo, OP3 clearly told the complainant that OP3 was not responsible for any warranty, guarantee of the sold mobile set and also showed the condition so mentioned in the cash memo issued to the complainant wherein it is mentioned ‘Guarantee, warranty valid in service centre’ of the company of the manufactured goods and after going through and admitting the terms of sale of the mobile set. Thus, Opposite party No.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint by denying all the averments made in corresponding paras of the complaint.

4.                Evidence was adduced by Ld. counsel for complainant has adduced evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of complainant, Ex.CA, wherein the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP3 tendered affidavit  of Parmod Kumar, Prop. of M/S. Gupta Music Café Shop, Ex. RA3 and closed the evidence of OP3.

5.                The case was fixed for arguments. The complainant and OP3 lead their oral arguments. Learned counsel for complainant argued that on 01.11.2013, the complainant made his mind to purchase one mobile set of Nokia or Samsung and he visited OP3 where agent/salesman of OP3 induced/compelled the complainant to purchase mobile set of Intex I-5 and started appreciating the qualities of Intex I-5 perhaps OP3 was having good margin in that very set and the complainant purchased the mobile set of Intex I-5 from OP3 on again and again compelling/asking by said agent./salesman of OP3, vide invoice No.16917 dated 01.11.2013 for a sum of Rs.11,200/- bearing IMEI No.911316200765632. The said mobile started giving trouble few days after its purchase and camera of said set was not working, said set started hanging and speaker of said set were not working properly and volume was also not good and overall the said set was not working properly and the complainant apprised the said fact to OP3 and OP3 asked the complainant to contact the service centre i.e. OP2.  On 13.08.2014, the complainant approached OP2 and OP2 told him to collect the set after getting it repaired from their head office within few days, otherwise, they would provide new mobile se to complainant and OP2 issued service job sheet No.408135329011T001 dated 13.08.2014 to the complainant. The complainant many a times visited OP to know the status  of his mobile but OP2 failed to give satisfactory reply and started making lame excuses one after the other.

6.                 Refuting the allegations leveled by the complainant, Ld counsel for OP3 argued that no agent of OP3 ever induced or compelled the complainant to purchase the mobile set of Intex I-5 and the complainant himself with his own wish and will without any type of inducement or compelling circumstances, purchased the same from of his own and after selecting the mobile set, purchased the same. Otherwise also every customer purchases the goods at his or her sweet will. While issuing the cash memo, OP3 clearly told the complainant that OP3 was not responsible for any warranty, guarantee of the sold mobile set and also showed the condition so mentioned in the cash memo issued to the complainant wherein it is mentioned ‘Guarantee, warranty valid in service centre’ of the company of the manufactured goods and after going through and admitting the terms of sale of the mobile set.

7.                We have gone through the pleadings of complainant and also perused the entire record placed on file.

8.                It is evident that the complainant purchased the said mobile set Intex I-5 from OP3 on 01.11.2013 for a sum of Rs.11,200/-, which started giving problem after its purchase and the camera of the said mobile was not properly working, which hanged sometimes. The said mobile started hanging and the speakers were also not working properly. The complainant then approached OP2 for the service and repair of the said mobile and job sheet No. 408135329011T001 dated 13.08.2014 was prepared and issued to the complainant, meaning thereby, the complainant had approached the OPs within the warranty period. The complainant made so many visits to the OPs but no satisfactory service was provided by OP2. Since the mobile set got defective within warranty period, as such, it was incumbent upon OP1, 2 and 3 to provide satisfactory service to the complainant for repair of the mobile hand set. The opposite parties have evaded their responsibility, as such, both OP2 and OP3 are directed to repair the mobile of the complainant. In the event, the mobile is not repairable, the same may be replaced with a new one. In view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint, same is allowed with cost assessed at Rs.3000/-. The order be complied by the ops within 15 days on receipt of certified copy of the order. File be consigned to record room.

                             (S.P.Garg)                               (R.L.Ahuja)

                               Member                                   President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:22.07.2015 

Gobind Ram