CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/230/16

          Date of Institution:-   05.05.2016         

          Order Reserved on:- 05.02.2016

                    Date of Decision:-      28.05.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Vishal Mashi

S/o Sh. Michel Mashi

R/o House No.5,

Block CPO, Madangir, New Delhi - 110062

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. M/sIntext Technologies (India) Ltd.

Through its Manager/Prop./A.R.

B-81, Okhla Industrial Area

Phase-I,Okhla, New Delhi – 110020

2. M/s Bunty Music Centre

H-II-20, Madangir,

New Delhi - 110062

.…..Opposite Parties

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thathe has purchased Intext Aqua Speed Mobile Phone of dual sim with IMEI No.911437900137250 for a sum of Rs.8000/- vide bill no.126 dated 30.04.2015 from OP-2 bearing warranty of one year. OP-2 has issued two invoices i.e. one at the time of purchase and second at the time of completion of the loan. The handset was giving problems like auto restart, low volume, speaker low volume etc. just after one month from the date of purchase. He has submitted the phone with authorized service center at 204, AgarwalBhawan, 35-36, Nehru Place, New Delhi. The handset after repairs was given after ten days but problem again cropped up after few days. He has submitted the phone seven times at authorised service centers situated at Lajpat Nagar and Nehru Place. The service center used to take back the job sheets before delivering the phone. The problems again started in the phone and he visited authorized service center at M/s Techno Care solutions Pvt. Ltd., E-14, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi on 20.06.2016 where he was told that warranty has expired. It was also told that phone was activated prior to the date of purchase with another sim number. The defects were not removed. He has visited OP-2 on 24.03.2016 and informed about the activation of the phone before its sale. OP-2 kept the original phone and bill. The OP-2 returned the phone after 18 days without bill. He sent a mail dated 20.04.2016 to OP for the replacement or refund of the phone or refund of the price. The OP-2 has not repaired the phone. There is deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint.

2. OP-1 and 2 did not appear despite due service and accordingly proceeded ex-parte on 28.10.2016.

3. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents annexed with the complaint.

4. No one has turned up on 05.02.2024 to address the arguments so the case was reserved for orders by keeping in view the fact that case is ex-parte and pertains to year 2016.

5. The perusal of the evidence on record shows that the complainant has purchased the mobile phone in question on 30.04.2015 from OP-2 as cleared from Annexure-1. The phone was under warranty for one year. There were problems like auto restart, low volume, speaker low volume etc. in the phone during the period of warranty. The complainant has taken the phone to two service stations for the rectification of defect. The service centers failed to remove the defects despite the fact that complainant has allegedly taken the mobile phone to the service station for around seven times.

6. The evidence led by the complainant shows that the phone was reactivated prior to its sale to him. This fact was allegedly brought to the notice of OP-2 by the complainant.

7. The evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted. The OP-2 was the best person to controvert the evidence led by the complainant. There is nothing on the record to view the evidence of the complainant with the aid of spectacles.

8. The sale of pre-activated mobile phone coupled with the fact that defects in the mobile phone cropped up during the period of warranty which were not rectified tantamount to unfair trade practice as well as led to deficiency of service.

9. In view of our aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed to the effect that OPs shall pay jointly or severally a sum of Rs.8,000/- along with an interest @7% from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 05.05.2016 to the complainant till its realization. The complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and agony and Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses. The OPs are directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @7% p.a. on the amount of mental harassment, agony and litigation charges i.e. from the date of order till its realization.

• 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 28.05.2024.