DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1072 of 2017
Date of institution: 15.12.2017
Date of Decision: 16.03.2021
Pardeep Kumar son of Shri Dharam Singh aged 36 years resident of House No.115-A, Shiva Enclave, Village Pabhat, Sub Tehsil Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Radha Communication, SCO 71, First Floor, Phase-2, SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its Manager.
2. M/s. Intex Technologies (India) Ltd., A-61, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, Delhi 110020 through its Managing Director.
3. M/s. Anmol Watch & Electronics (P) Ltd., SCO 1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Sh. Kanwaljeet Singh, Member
Present: None for the complainant.
OP No.1 and 2 ex-parte.
Complaint against OP No.3 not admitted.
Order dictated by :- Sh. Kanwaljeet Singh, Member, SBS Nagar at Mohali
Order
1. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased a new mobile set “Intex Company” Model Number Aqua Raze White No.91149660259 on 24.09.2016 from OP No.3. In the month of August, 2017 some problem occurred in the said mobile set as the ring tone was not working and TP Screen got broken. The complainant went to OP No.3 for removal of problem then OP No.3 told to the complainant to go to OP No.1, then complainant went to OP No.1 and told the problems occurred in the mobile set. OP No.1 inspected the mobile set and informed the cost of repair would be Rs.1500/- for repair of both the problems. OP No.1 assured to take back the mobile set after 9 to 10 days and authorized signatory issued work order dated 05.08.2017 and received advance payment of Rs.200/- against repair of the mobile. After 9/10 days when the complainant went to OP No.1 for taking his set, then OP No.1 informed that the mobile set is required to be sent with OP No.2 and it will further take two weeks for the repairs. Complainant made various visits to OP No.1 for the repair of mobile set, but OP No.1 always put off the matter on one pretext or the another. The complainant is residing at Zirakpur and the office of OP No.1 is situated at Phase-2 Mohali and the distance is almost 14 to 15 KMs approximately and the complainant made number of visits to OP No.1 and thus complainant suffered loss of money as well as time and also suffered harassment and lastly prayed OPs to be directed to handover the mobile set to the complainant in running condition or in alternative handover the other mobile set with same brand and to pay compensation amounting to Rs.2.00 lakhs on account of harassment and to pay litigation fee of Rs.25,000/-.
2. Upon notice, OP No.1 and 2 did not appear and ultimately OP No.1 proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.08.2018 and OP No.2 also proceeded ex-parte on 25.06.2019. Complaint against OP No.3 was not admitted vide our orders dated 20.12.2017.
3. To prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit along with documents Ann.C-1 and Ann.C-2.
4. During ex-parte arguments, we have heard learned counsel for the complainant and examined the record carefully with the valuable assistance of ld. Counsel for the complainant.
5. Now coming to the major controversy whether OP No.1 is liable for repair and handover the mobile set to the complainant in running condition or not? No doubt it is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the mobile set from OP No.3 as per Ann. C-1 invoice dated 24.09.2016. Further it is also an admitted fact that the complainant faced some problem in the mobile set and submitted the same before OP No.1 and official of OP No.1 handed over copy of the job sheet dated 05.08.2017 to the complainant. During submission of mobile set in question the complainant also handed over the battery alongwith mobile set to OP No.1. We have perused Ann. C-2 job sheet. OP No.1 also received Rs.200/- in advance and the balance amount is mentioned Rs.1300/-. Complainant and OP No.1 also put their signatures in English language on the job sheet. As per Ann. C-1 some terms and conditions mentioned at the bottom of the invoice dated 24.09.2016, in which it is crystal clear that the dealer is not responsible for replacement and repair for any complaint related to the product the customer should directly go to company service centre. We observe that since 05.08.2017 OP No.1 did not bother to deliver the mobile set to the complainant. In modern era necessity of mobile set is an utmost important factor for every human being. Complainant was unable to utilise the mobile set for his personal use since 05.08.2017 to till date, which amounts a clear cut deficiency on the part of OP No.1. We observed from document Ann. C-2 that OP No.1 mentioned in the column of warranty (in/out customer abuse) out, but this fact is not relied upon because Op No.1 did not appear in this Commission and unable to rebut the allegations of the complainant that the mobile set is out of warranty or not by way of any cogent evidence. We observed that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question of Rs.5580/- on 24.09.2016. As per pleadings in Para No.2 of the complaint, in the month of August, 2017 some problems occurred in the mobile set as the ring tone was not working and TP screen got broken. Since 05.08.2017 OP No.1 did not contact the complainant regarding mobile set is in running condition or not. From this angle, OP No.1 is liable to provide deficiency in service qua complainant.
6. Resultantly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint with the direction to OP No.1 to repair the mobile set in running condition of all aspects free of cost and handover the same to the complainant within 30 days. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
March 16 , 2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
(Kanwaljeet Singh)
Member