Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/613

S.M.Gulati - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Intexd Tech (India) Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

09 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 613 of 23.08.2016

Date of Decision            :   09.12.2016

 

S.M.Gulati, Advocate, son of Shri Dev Raj Gulati, Resident of 407-D, B.R.S.Nagar, Ludhiana.

 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.M/s Intex Technologies (India) Limited, D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-110020, through its Managing Director.

2.M/s Trendz Digi World, Shop No.22, R.S.Model Senior Secondary School Market, Ishmeet Chowk, Shastri Nagar, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana through its Partner/Proprietor.

 

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS.VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        In person             

For OPs                         :        Ex-parte

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.       Shorn off unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Intex Aqua Star-II mobile handset having IMEI No.911430507962717 for Rs.7300/- from OP2, the authorized dealer of OP1, through invoice No.2854 dated 27.10.2015. Since from the day of purchase, the handset giving one or the other problem like that of battery life of the handset very poor, downloaded applications like Facebook and Whatsapp were not functioning properly. Even if the battery charged to 100%, it would stand consumed in half day, if used. One has to restart the application of Facebook and Whatsapp by reloading. Complainant approached local authorized service centre of OP1 on 19.1.2016 for disclosing the problem of non-functioning of the applications and job sheet No.601196466027T001 was issued. Complainant was disclosed as if there may be problem of software in the handset. Service centre of OP1 reloaded the software, but even then the problem still persisted. The handset was kept under observation by the complainant for 5 days after reloading of the software, but the problem still persisted. By claiming the manufacturing defect in the handset, complainant sent email dated 24.1.2016 to OP1 with request of replacement of the handset. That mail was duly acknowledged and an automated acknowledgement was received from OP1. Complainant was made aware as if representative of customer care service centre will respond to the complainant within two working days, failing which, complainant should contact the helpline numbers. No customer care representative of OP1 bothered to contact the complainant. OP1 apologized the inconvenience caused to the complainant vide email dated 27.1.2016. Complainant contacted the service centre of OP1, where the service engineer after examining the handset, disclosed that battery of the handset is defective and he ordered a new battery for the handset vide job sheet No.603256466027t0014 dated 25.3.2016. Thereafter, a brand new battery was replaced and the complainant was called upon to charge the battery for whole night, so that it could achieve 100% charging. Those instructions were followed, but the battery was discharged within 4 hours of its charging, so problem still persisted. Battery was replaced free of costs because of subsistence of the warranty. Copy of job sheet was not delivered to the complainant. Problem was again conveyed to OP1 vide email dated 7.4.2016, but again no representative of customer care of OP1 contacted the complainant. Complainant was asked to get in touch with the service centre vide email dated 8.4.2016. Problem of handset again brought to the notice of OP1 vide email 11.4.2016. Complainant conveyed as if there is manufacturing defect and OP1 was called upon to either replace the handset or in the alternative, to refund the price of the handset. However, no action initiated. Problem persisted and battery replaced on 30.3.2016, but the same went blank and could not be charged with the charger. Complainant was asked to pay Rs.550/- as the cost of the battery. So, on advice of service engineer of OP1, new battery was purchased with unique No.16040014736 vide invoice No.181 dated 5.7.2016 from Quick Service, Civil Lines, Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana. It was disclosed that battery is having warranty of 3 months. At the time of purchase of battery, the handset was indicating that the battery is charged to the extent of 57%. Complainant was called upon to charge the battery during night for attainment of 100% charging. Despite putting the battery on charging during night, it was found in the morning that battery stood completely drained. Even the new replaced battery is not up to the mark. That battery again stood changed vide unique No.GY16040038047. Despite putting the battery on charge from 1:00 PM to 08:00 PM, the charging could take place only to the extent of 51%. So, complainant conveyed his displeasure with regard to the new battery issued by the authorized service centre of OP1 vide email dated 6.7.2016 itself. Request was submitted for replacement of the handset with a fault free handset, but to no effect. Again matter was reported to the service centre on 11.7.2016 regarding problem of heating of handset, battery heating and charging related problem. The service centre after issue of job sheet No.607116466033T001, disclosed as if charging point is not functioning properly. Complainant was disclosed that handset would stand repaired within 10 to 15 days. However, the handset was retained by the service centre for about one month and the same was returned to the complainant only on 12.8.2016. Complainant was disclosed that the entire mother board of the handset along with charging jack has been replaced. Assurance was given to the complainant as if the handset will not cause any problem. However, problem still persisted because the charging problem could not be solved. By claiming manufacturing defect in the handset and by pleading that the purchased handset has become a headache for the complainant, prayer made for issue of direction to Ops either to replace the defective mobile handset of the complainant with new fault free handset of the similar value or to refund the price with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase of the handset. Compensation for mental harassment along with litigation costs of Rs.75,000/- claimed.

2.                Ops in this case are ex-parte.

3.                Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and then closed the ex-parte evidence.

4.                Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard and records gone through carefully.

5.                Ex.C1 is the retail invoice dated 27.10.2015 establishing as if the mobile handset in question was purchased by the complainant for consideration of Rs.7300/- from Op2. Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and Ex.C12 to Ex.C15 are copies of email correspondence held by the complainant with Ops from time to time. Ex.C11 is the invoice dated 5.7.2016 which corroborates the case of the complainant that the original battery was replaced with new one, which was purchased by the complainant by paying Rs.550/- as price to Quick Services, Civil Lines, Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana. Ex.C16 is the job sheet dated 11.7.2016 establishing as if the problem of battery low and high show as well as of not charging was reported and that is why, the handset was deposited by the complainant with the service centre for repair. Persistent fault of non due charging of the mobile or of the battery establishes as if there may be defect in the charger and as such, contents of affidavit Ex.CA in this respect are correct to this extent. The charger never shown to be replaced and as such virtually the complainant has not been provided due services. Complainant has to approach Ops time and again for removal of the defects and as such, he certainly suffered mental harassment and even has to bear the litigation expenses. Ends of justice in such circumstances warrant that Ops should repair the handset free of costs within 30 days of submission of same with OP2, but in case, handset is not found to be repairable, then the same will be replaced with new one of worth of Rs.7300/-.

 6.               As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that Ops will repair the hand set free of costs within 30 days of submission of same with OP2. Compensation of mental harassment of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP1 and OP2, whose liability held as joint and several. In case the set found by the Ops to be not repairable, then they will replace the same with new one of worth of Rs.7300/-. Payment of these costs be made by Ops within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

7.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                                       (G.K. Dhir)

                                      Member                                                President

Announced in Open Forum                                                          Dated:09.12.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.