BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 411of 2015
Date of Institution: 26.6.2015
Date of Decision: 25.02.2016
Data Ram Mishra 68 years son of S.P. Mishra resident of House No. 3773 Bagichi Mohan Singh outside Ghee Mandi, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- M/s. Amritsar Mobile Centre , Hall Bazar, Amritsar through its Prop./Partner/Person to receive the summons
- M/s. Intex Perfect Mobile repair Center Shop No. 19-20, Simran Plaza, Queens Road, Amritsar 143001 Punjab through its Principal Officer/Prop./Partner to receive the summons
- Intex India Ltd D 18/2, Okhla Industrial Area Phase II, New Delhi through its Managing Director/Manager/Prop./Owner Officer to receive the summons
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : In person
For the Opposite Party No.1 : Sh. Deepinder Singh,Advocate
For opposite parties No.2 & 3 : Ex-parte
Quorum:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.
1. Present complaint has been filed by Data Ram Mishra under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased mobile Intex Aqua Star vide bill No. 3642 dated 26.11.2014 for Rs. 6500/- from opposite party No.1 . According to the complainant immediately after purchase of the mobile set, it became out of order . The complainant brought this defect to the notice of opposite party No.1, who referred the complainant to approach opposite party No.2, the service centre of opposite party No.3. The complainant gave the mobile for repair to opposite party No.2 on 1.4.2015 but till date the mobile could not be repaired and requires replacement. The complainant approached opposite party for replacement of the mobile set 5.0 but instead of replacing the mobile set , they offered another mobile set 2.0, which the complainant refused to accept. Thereafter complainant made so many requests to the opposite party for replacement or refund of the price of the mobile set, but to no avail. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the mobile set with new one or in the alternative to refund the price of the mobile set i.e. Rs. 6500/- alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 15000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that replying opposite party is only a selling dealer and the warranty obligations, if any are to be provided by the other opposite parties and there is no defect in the sale of the product, as such the complaint against replying opposite party is not maintainable. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 did not appear despite service, as such they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.8.2015.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5.
5. Opposite party No.1 did not lead any evidence and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 1.2.2016 . But later on Sh. Deepinder Singh,Adv. appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 and he is allowed to join the proceedings at that stage vide order dated 18.2.2016.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the complainant and ld.counsel for opposite party No.1 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the complainant .
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the complainant, it is clear that complainant purchased mobile set Intex Aqua Star from opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated 26.11.2014 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 6500/-. The complainant submitted that the said mobile became defective and became out of order. The complainant approached opposite party No.2, authorized service centre of opposite party No.3 vide job sheet dated 1.4.2015 Ex.C-3 . Opposite party No.2 returned the mobile set after repair to the complainant. But after a few days the same defect occurred i.e. mobile set became out of order. The complainant again approached opposite party No.2 vide job sheet dated 14.4.2015 Ex.C-4 . Again opposite party No.2 returned the mobile set to the complainant. But again same defect appeared in the mobile set and again the complainant approached opposite party No.2 vide job sheet dated 7.5.2015 to rectify the defect in the mobile set. But opposite party No.2 could not repair the mobile set nor returned the same to the complainant. Since 7.5.2015 the said mobile set is lying with opposite party No.2. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
8. Whereas case of opposite party No.1 is that opposite party No.1 is only selling dealer and the warranty obligations, if any are to be provided by opposite parties No.2 & 3, if there is any defect appeared in the mobile set of the complainant. So opposite party No.1 is not liable for the repair of the mobile set of the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased mobile set Intex Aqua Star from opposite party No.1 manufactured by opposite party No.3 vide invoice dated 26.11.2014 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 6500/-. The said mobile set became defective, rather became out of order and the complainant approached opposite party No.2, authorized service centre of opposite party No.3 on 1.4.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C-3 and the opposite party returned the mobile set to the complainant after repair. But the same defect appeared in the mobile set of the complainant and the complainant again approached opposite party No.2 vide job sheet dated 14.4.2015 Ex.C-4 . Again opposite party after repair returned the mobile set to the complainant. But the mobile set did not work properly and again the complainant handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.2 vide job sheet dated 7.5.2015 . But this time opposite party No.2 failed to rectify the defects in the mobile set of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant. All this shows that the mobile set of the complainant is not repairable that is why none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.2 & 3 to contest the case of the complainant nor any person on behalf of opposite parties No.2 & 3 dared to file affidavit to rebut the evidence produced by the complainant and the evidence produced by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged.
10. Resultantly we allow the complaint with costs and opposite parties No.2 & 3 are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one 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 opposite parties No.2 & 3 are liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the price of the mobile set i.e. Rs. 6500/- from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
25.02.2016 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ (Anoop Sharma) ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
