| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO.CC/167/16 Date of Institution:- 24.04.2015 Order Reserved on:- 05.06.2024 Date of Decision:- 02.07.2024 IN THE MATTER OF: AjithMenon Proprietor of M/s GagsonEnterproses D-370, Ground Floor, Behind MTNL Exchange Chirag Delhi, New Delhi – 110017 .….. Complainant VERSUS - M/s Intext Technologies (India) Ltd.
Through its Manager/Prop./A.R. B-81, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I, Okhla, New Delhi –110020 - M/s Technocare Solution Pvt. Ltd.
E-14, Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi – 110024 - M/s ADBG Enterprise
C-48, Near SBI Bank, Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi - 110024 ……Opposite Parties Per Dr. HarshaliKaur, Member - The complainant purchased a new Intex SWAP Mobile bearing model No. GC5070 dual SIM vide IMEI no.911109550036401 from OP-3. He paid a sum of Rs.8200/- and was issued a retail invoice, book no.03, Sr. No. 277 on 02.07.2015 (Annexure-1). The mobile handset of the complainant came with a warranty of one year, i.e. from 02.07.2015 to 01.07.2016 and as per the warranty terms, if the mobile was not reparable, the manufacturer would replace the said mobile free of cost.
- The complainant alleges that his handset was creating several problems only two months after its purchase, such as keypad not working, receiver not working, low volume, speaker low volume etc. Hence, the phone did not work properly from the beginning and was finally completely dead approximately two months after the date of purchase. The complainant reported the defects mentioned above to OP-3 and the customer care of OP-1, who advised the complainant to take his mobile phone to the nearest service center.
- The complainant submitted his phone to OP-2, the authorised service centre of OP-1, on 08.09.2015. Job sheet no.404047031041T001 was generated by OP-2, and the service engineers noted the defects, informing him regarding the collection of his repaired phone within one week (Annexure-2). Despite repeatedly visiting the OP-2 service centre and making numerous calls, the complainant was only asked for more time, and his phone was not repaired and returned to him. The complainant requested that his phone be either repaired or replaced as per the warranty terms, but to no avail.
- When the complainant could not get his phone repaired by OP-2, he sent emails to OP-1 and 2 on 30.10.2015 regarding repairing or replacing his handset, but OP-1 and OP-2 neither sent any reply nor acknowledged his email (Annexure-3). The complainant was, therefore, forced to send reminder mail on 09.11.2015 (Annexure-4), but the OPs did not take any concrete steps to resolve his grievance.
- As a last recourse, the complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. He has prayed for directions to the OPs to refund the cost of the handset, i.e. Rs.8200/- with interest or to replace his mobile with a new working model, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental torture pain and agony suffered by him and Rs.20,000/- as litigation charges.
- Notice was issued to the OPs. When OP-1 and 2 did not appear despite adequate service proof of, which was filed by the complainant on record, OP-1 & 2 were proceeded Ex-pate on 27.01.2016. OP-3, despite marking their appearance, did not file their reply within the statutory period as provided in the Act for reasons best known to them. Hence, the defence of OP-3 was struck off vide order dated 28.03.2016.
- The complainant filed the affidavit of Sh. Sujith, Manager of the Complainant company to be read in evidence along with written arguments. When none of the parties appeared despite the case being relisted several times, we felt it prudent to decide the complaint based on material already on record and, therefore, reserved the present complaint for orders.
- We have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and have also perused the documents filed by the complainant as OP-1 and 2 are ex-parte, and the defence of OP-3 was struck off.
- We find that the complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by OP-1 from OP-3 on 02.07.2015, paying a consideration amount of Rs.8200/-. The complainant has annexed the copy of the retail invoice issued by OP-3 as Annexure-1 with his complaint. The complainant's mobile phone had a one-year warranty. During the warranty period, the complainant deposited his phone on 08.09.2015 for repair at OP-2, finding several issues like defective keypad and receiver and low volume with his newly purchased handset. The complainant requested the OP-2 executives replace his phone if it was irreparable, as it was still within the warranty period, to no avail.
- The complainant has annexed a copy of the job card issued by OP-2 on 08.09.2015 (Annexure-2). A bare perusal of this job sheet clearly shows that the complainant's mobile handset is under warranty, and the warranty remarksare mentioned as set dead. The complainant has also annexed the emails sent to OP-1 and 2 for the return of the repaired handset mobile sent or repair of the same dated 30.10.2015 and 09.11.2015.
- This job sheet clarifies that the complainant's mobile handset purchased by him on 2.7.2015 stopped working only after two months of use when it was handed over to OP-2 on 8.09.2015. Further, the job sheet does not reflect that there was any physical damage that could have caused the mobile to stop functioning altogether. Undoubtedly, there was some defect that OP-1 and 2 could not rectify and repair to return the phone in working condition to the complainant even till 9.11.2015.
- We have no reason to disbelieve the complainant's unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony, which he has duly corroborated with documentary evidence. OP-1 and OP-2 were deficient in their promise to the complainant to repair his phone and return the same within the warranty period, which they were unable to do and should be held liable for the same.
- So far as OP-3, the seller from where the complainant purchased the mobile handset. We feel OP-3 had no role in the defects arising in the complainant's phone after two months of purchase. Hence, we absolve OP-3 of any liability arising from the present complaint.
- Hence, allowing the complaint, we direct OP-1 and 2 to refund the consideration amount of Rs.8200/- to the complainant along with interest @9% from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 08.12.2015, till realisation. No other order as to cost as the interest granted in the present complaint shall adequately meet with the end of justice.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 02.07.2024.
| |
