| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.270 of 11-04-2016 Decided on 20-09-2016 Harbans Singh aged about 55 years S/o Bhagwan Singh R/o H.No.16815, St.No.5/1, Basant Vihar Colony, Bathinda (Pb.). ........Complainant Versus 1.M/s Intex Technologies (India) Ltd, D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-110020, through its Managing Director. 2.M/s Vintage Communication, Shop No.16, Krishna Market Near Hotel Krishna Continental, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda, through its Proprietor. 3.M/s Varun Telecom, Shop No.10, SSD Sabha Market, The Mall, Bathinda-151001, through its Proprietor. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- Complainant: Sh.Harbans Singh in person. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2: Ex-parte. Opposite party No.3: None. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Harbans Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties M/s Intex Technologies (India) Ltd and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile handset Yuvi Pro Silver for Rs.1400/- vide invoice No.330 from opposite party No.3 with one year guarantee on 30.10.2015 . It is alleged that soon after purchase i.e. during the warranty period and within a week, the mobile handset started giving troubles regarding 'receiver, camera, keyboard not working'. The complainant took his mobile handset to opposite party No.2 (service centre), it issued him job sheet dated 5.11.2015. After long wait of more than 84 days and several visits, on 28.1.2016, the mobile handset was replaced with another mobile handset. The second mobile handset also started giving problem and same was handed over to opposite party No.2 vide job sheet dated 29.1.2016. After long wait of over a month on 11.3.2016, opposite party No.2 offered an old mobile handset in loose condition and refused to replace the defective piece with fresh one. It is further alleged that since the mobile handset was beyond repair and suffered inherent manufacturing defect, opposite party No.2 declared so, but opposite parties refused to replace it with new one for which they are duty bound. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony etc. alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/- in addition to refund of price of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.1400/-. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them. Opposite party No.3 appeared in person and contested the complaint. Opposite party No.3 has submitted a short written version wherein he revealed that he is only shopkeeper and he sells the mobile handsets on a very meager margin. He is neither the manufacturer nor service centre and he requested for exoneration. Complainant was afforded opportunities to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavits dated 11.4.2016 and 14.6.2016, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C5); photocopy of retail invoice, (Ex.C2); photocopy of job sheet, (Ex.C3); photocopy of job sheet alongwith backside writing, (Ex.C4) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.3 has tendered into evidence his own affidavit dated 26.7.2016, (OP3/1) and closed the evidence. We have heard complainant and gone through the file carefully. Complainant has reiterated his averments as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by the complainant that he has placed on record invoice(Ex.C2) which proves that he has purchased the mobile handset from opposite party No.3. The job sheet, (Ex.C3) proves that he reported the fault on 5.11.2015 and as per complainant, he was provided another mobile handset on 28.1.2016. Another job sheet dated 29.1.2016, (Ex.C4) proves that the mobile handset is with opposite party No.2, but it has not replaced the mobile handset with new one. Therefore, it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. It is also pointed out by the complainant that on the backside of the job sheet, (Ex.C4), it is reported that the handset is O.K with different IMEI number. This fact itself shows that opposite party No.2 wants to provide another mobile handset instead of mobile handset of the complainant. Therefore, it proves that the mobile handset provided to the complainant was suffering from manufacturing defect. The deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties stands proved. The complaint be accepted as prayed for. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. The complainant has purchased one mobile handset from opposite party No.3, manufactured by opposite party No.1. As per complainant, the mobile handset developed faults and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 repaired the same. It is also the case of the complainant that another mobile handset was defective and on next day, it was reported to opposite party No.2, but opposite party No.2 has not done the needful. The job sheet dated 29.1.2016 issued by opposite party No.2 shows that the complainant handed over the mobile handset to opposite party No.2 on 29.1.2016 and on its backside, there is note by opposite party No.2 that handset is O.K on 11.3.2016 with different IMEI number. It is further mentioned that IMEI number is changed by Intex Technology Limited, but handset is not received by customer. Therefore, from this note, it can be concluded that the second mobile handset is also replaced with another one but the mobile handset was handed over to opposite party No.2 on 29.1.2016 and it is repaired/replaced on 11.3.2016. There is unreasonable delay on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. This fact proves deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.1000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed qua opposite party No.3. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to repair the mobile handset in question as per terms and conditions of warranty. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 20-09-2016 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
