Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Complaint Case No.418/15
Date of institution : 1,7.2015
Date of decision : 21.9.2015
Rohit Arora ( Age3 33 ) son of Sh.Ramesh Kumar, resident of 1273/9, Gali Khai Wali, Katra Khazana, Amritsar – 143001.
..............Complainant
Versus
M/s.Intex Technologies India Limited, D18/2, Okhla Ind.Area, Phase 2, New Delhi – 110020 ( India ).
M/s.Perfect Times, Outside Gill Market, Hall Bazar, Amritsar.
M/s.Perfect Mobile Repair Centre, Shop No.19-20, Simran Plaza Market, 210-A, Queens Road, Amritsar – 143001.
...............Opposite parties
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act
Present : For the complainant : In person
For the opposite parties : Ex-parte
QUORUM : Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President and Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Order Dictated by :
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President
Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Rohit Arora under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that the complainant purchased one Intex Mobile Cloud Y17+ IMEI 911356650783776 from Perfect Times, Outside Gill Market,Hall Bazar, Amritsar against bill No.306 for Rs.5500/- on 14.8.2014. Complainant
-2-
alleges that after seven months, mobile started giving problem I.e.automatic switch off and not started again. The complainant gave his mobile phone to the Perfect Mobile Repair Centre for its repair against job sheet No.504275929042 but the service centre did not return the mobile set to the complainant and same is lying with the service centre. The officials of the service centre are not giving satisfactory reply to the complainant. While alleging deficiency in service, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.5500/- and Rs.8000/- for mental harassment.
None appeared on behalf of the opposite parties No.1,2 & 3, as such, opposite parties No.1,2 & 3 are proceeded against ex-parte.
Complainant tendered his duly sworn affidavit ex.C-1, copy of bill ex.C-2,copy of job sheet ex.C-3.
We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the complainant and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by complainant.
From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that complainant purchased Intex Mobile Phone from the opposite party No.2 vide bill dated 14.8.2014 ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs.5500/- with warranty of one year. Complainant submitted that after seven months, the said mobile phone started giving problem of automatic switch off and not started again. On 27.4.2015, complainant approached opposite party No.3 authorized service centre for repair of the said mobile phone and handed over the mobile phone to the opposite party No.3 vide job sheet dated 27.4.2015 ex.C-3 but the opposite party No.3 could not repair the mobile phone nor returned the same to the complainant despite the fact that complainant
-3-
approached the opposite party No.3 many times. So, the said mobile phone is still lying with the opposite party No.3. Complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.3.
Evidence in the form of affidavit of the complainant ex. C-1 proves all the averments in the complaint and documents ex.C-2 copy of the invoice and ex.C-3 job sheet dated 27.4.2015 issued by the opposite party No.3 remained unrebutted and unchallenged on record as none appeared on behalf of opposite parties to contest the complaint filed by the complainant nor any person from the opposite parties dared to file any affidavit to rebut the evidence produced by the complainant.
So, from the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant deposited the mobile phone with the opposite party No.3 vide job sheet dated 27.4.2015 ex.C-3 with the problem automatic switch off but the opposite party No.3 failed to repair the said mobile phone of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant. All this fully proves that mobile hand set of the complainant is not repairable. As such, opposite party No.1 is liable either to replace the mobile hand set of the complainant with new one of the same make and brand or to refund the price value of the mobile hand set.
Resultantly, present complaint is allowed ex-parte and Present : Complainant in person
Opposite parties No.1,2 & 3 ex-parte
Vide separate order, complaint has been partly allowed ex-parte and the opposite parties No.1 & 3 are directed either to replace the mobile hand set of the complainant with new one of the same make and brand or to refund the price value of the mobile set to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order; failing which opposite parties No.1 & 3 shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a.on the price value of Rs.5500/- from the date of filing of complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite parties No.1 & 3 are also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- 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.
21.9.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa )
Member
