BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.544 of 2015

Date of Instt. 29.12.2015

Date of Decision : 12.04.2016

Piara lal Mehndiratta R/o EQ-397, Bazar Pir Bodla, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. M/s Rizak Electronics, C-1 (6) Guru Nanak Market, Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar C/o M/s Bhatia Electronics, Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar, (Backside Raju Bhatura Shop).

2. M/s Gopal Telecom, Nehru Garden Road, Near Railway Station, Jalandhar, Opposite ATM Central Bank of India.

3. Intex Technologies Pvt Ltd., No.18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, Noida City New Delhi.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Opposite parties exparte.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased one mobile set of Intex Alpha Pro vide invoice No.576 dated 28.4.2015 from OP No.1. The complainant submitted that the said mobile set was not working properly as it was not giving proper ring tone. Complainant approached OP No.2 authorized service centre of OP No.3 who told the complainant that his mobile set is not repairable. However, they had put some memory card in the mobile set and installed ring tone and charged Rs.150/- from the complainant. The mobile set gave some slight ring tone but after a few days the said ring tone again disappeared. Complainant again approached the OPs No.1 & 2 with request either to replace the mobile set or to refund the amount of the mobile set but they neither repaired the mobile set nor replaced the same nor refund the amount. The complainant also served notice to OP No.1 dated 12.11.2015 through registered post but OP did not even submit any reply to that notice. Hence this complaint.

2. Notice of this complaint was given to the OPs but nobody has turn-up despite service and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

3. In support of his exparte complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the exparte evidence of the complainant.

4. We have heard the complainant and have minutely gone through the record.

5. From the entire record i.e. version of the complainant in the complaint and the evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that complainant purchased mobile handset in question from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 28.4.2015 Ex.C3 for sum of Rs.1100/- but the mobile set was not giving proper ring tone. The complainant approached OP No.2 authorized service centre of OP No.3 as directed by OP No.1 for repair of the mobile set but OP No.2 could not repair the mobile set rather they put separate software i.e. memory card and installed ring tone and charged amount from the complainant but ring tone again disappeared after a few days. The complainant again approached the OP No.2 to get rectified the problem in the mobile set but OP No.2 neither repaired the mobile set of the complainant nor replaced the same. The evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unchallenged from the OPs as none appeared on behalf of the OPs despite service to contest the case of the complainant nor any person from the OPs dared to file affidavit to rebut the evidence produced on record by the complainant. All this fully proves that mobile set of the complainant is defective one and not repairable. As such OPs No.2 & 3 are liable to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one or to refund the price of the mobile set to the complainant.

6. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed exparte with cost and the OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund the price of the mobile set to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OPs No.2 & 3 shall be liable to pay interest on the price amount of the mobile set of the complainant i.e. Rs.1100/- @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 29.12.2015 till the payment is made to the complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay cost of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.500/-. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh

12.04.2016 Member Member President