| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 201 of 12.5.2016 Decided on: 15.3.2017 Sanjay Sharma S/o Sh.Ramanuj Sahrma R/o #430 Street No.4, GuruNanak Nagar, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - M/s Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 through its Managing Director.
- Sony Mobiles, Intex Service Centre Bus Stand to Lahori Gate Road, Patiala-147001.
- Aneja Mobiles Shop No.23, Kohli Sweets Chowk, Tripuri Town, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Sanjay Sharma, complainant in person. Sh.Avinash Kumar, Advocate, counsel for Oppositet Party No.2. Opposite Parties No.1&3 ex-parte. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant purchased one mobile phone make Intex, Model Aqua speed from O.P. No.3 vide invoice No.2488 for an amount of Rs.6700/- on 29.7.2015. It is averred that on 5.5.2016, the said mobile phone stopped working and the complainant approached OP No.2. OP no.2 told the complainant that as there was a hair line crack on the screen of the mobile phone and the battery of the mobile phone also seemed to be weak but the complainant told OP No.2 that his mobile phone was functioning well with that very screen. On this, OP No.2, told the complainant that the mobile was not working at that time and that it will repair the mobile phone only after changing the screen by charging Rs.2300/- and the cost of the battery would be Rs.500/-.It is further averred that the O.Ps. cannot charge this amount from the complainant as the problem occurred during the warranty period. The complainant underwent a lot of harassment and also suffered monetary loss due to non working of the mobile phone. Ultimately, he approached this Forum under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act( for short the Act), 1986.
- On notice, OPs No.1&3 failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. The only plea taken by OP no.2 is that the warranty of the mobile phone was for 6 months and since the warranty of the mobile phone was over, the complainant was bound to pay the repair charges. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- The complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA, sworn affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
Whereas counsel for OP no.2 produced in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Prop. of Sonu Mobile alongwith document Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence. - We have heard the complainant in person, the ld. counsel for OP No.2 and also gone through the evidence on record.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone from OP No.3 on 29.7.2015 for an amount of Rs.6700/-.Ex.C3 is the copy of the registered legal notice dated 14.5.2016 sent by the complainant to the O.Ps. Ex.C5 is the copy of the warranty card showing that the mobile phone was under one year warranty. Ex.OP1 is the copy of the warranty card placed on record by OP No.2 but that is incomplete copy of the warranty card covering 6 to 16 conditions. That does not contain the condition regarding the warranty of the mobile phone. It only tells the warranty of the battery/ charger/
- In the present case, the defect cropped up in the mobile phone during warranty period and the O.Ps. were bound to rectify the same but they failed to rectify the problem and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint against OPs No.1&2 with a direction to rectify the defect in the mobile phone without charging any amount from the complainant as the defect occurred in the mobile phone during the warranty period, and if that is not possible to replace the same with a new mobile phone of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund the amount of Rs.6700/-, the same being the price of the mobile phone. O.Ps. are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant which is inclusive of the cost of litigation. Order be complied by O.Ps within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED:15.3.2017 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
