Haryana

Jind

CC/15/121

Rajinder Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Mobile World Communication Op 1 And Intex Technology India Ltd. Op 2 - Opp.Party(s)

Sh M.K. Redhu

03 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 139 of 2015

   Date of Institution: 30.9.2015

   Date of final order: 19.2.2016

 

Rajinder Jain S/o Sh. Ishwar Chand Jain r/o H.No. 512/17, Sharma Nagar Ram Rai Gate, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind.

 

                                                             ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1. M/s Mobile World Communication Batra Shopping Complex, Jhanj Gate, Jind through its Prop.
2. Ntex Technology India Ltd D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II New Delhi-110020 through its authorized signatory.

                                                          …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before: Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Presiding Member.

            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.   

 

Present:  Sh. M.K. Redhu Adv. for complainant.

              Opposite parties already ex-parte.

            

ORDER:

 

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased an Intex Aqua Star-II mobile set for a sum of Rs.6200/- vide bill No.11825 dated 16.6.2015 from opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 has given one year warranty of the above said mobile set. It is stated that on 24.8.2015 the above said mobile set started shutting down automatically and after some time it started

                        Rajinder Jain Vs. Mobile World etc.

                                        …2…

automatically  while it was being used. Thereafter, the complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1 and told about the problem of mobile set, the opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to remove the defect from opposite party No.2 i.e. service centre. The opposite party No.2 repair the mobile set of complainant and returned to him on 30.8.2015 but  the defect was not removed by the opposite party No.2. The complainant again visited the service centre of opposite party No.2 regarding the defect of mobile, the mechanic of opposite party No.2 told the complainant that set will be sent in company for removal of the defect. The complainant handed over the set to the opposite party No.2. The service centre returned back the battery and the back cover of the mobile set to the complainant.  The mobile set has not been returned by the company/service centre to the complainant. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay the cost of mobile set i.e. Rs.6,200/- as well as to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.

2.     Notice issued to opposite parties received back served but none has come present on behalf of opposite parties. Hence, the opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 10.11.2015.

3.     In ex-parte evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of job  sheet Ex. C-2 and copy of cash memo Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence.

                        Rajinder Jain Vs. Mobile World etc.

                                        …3…

4.     We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the complainant and perused the record placed on file. The complainant has purchased the mobile phone against a sum of Rs.6,200/- on 16.6.2015 and the same has started giving trouble. As per job sheet at Ex. C-2, the problem of “touch not working” has been reported by the complainant. The opposite parties are already ex-parte. The opposite parties have neither repaired the mobile nor replaced the same. Hence the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties is established and the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to replace the said mobile with new one. The order be complianced within one month from the date of orders.   Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

Announced on: 19.2.2016

                                                           Presiding Member,

 Member                                        District Consumer Disputes                                                               Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                        Rajinder Jain Vs. Mobile World etc.

                                       

Present:  Sh. M.K. Redhu Adv. for complainant.

              Opposite parties already ex-parte.

 

            Arguments heard. To come up on 19.2.2016 for orders.

                                                           Presiding Member,

                Member                                  DCDRF, Jind

                                                                  15.2.2016

 

Present:  Sh. M.K. Redhu Adv. for complainant.

              Opposite parties already ex-parte.

 

             Order announced, vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

                                                            Presiding Member,

                Member                                  DCDRF, Jind

                                                                  19.2.2016