IN THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, SAMBALPUR

C.C. No.16 of 2016

        Saikh Abdullah @ Sameer

        Represented through his father Saikh Wahidullah,

        S/o Saikh Amanullah,

        R/o - Sarlakani, Tarini Mandir Road, P.O.- Dhankauda

        Dist-Sambalpur (Odisha)                                                            ……………… Petitioner

-VERSUS –

1. M/s.  Mobile  Outlet, Lengu Mishra Chowk,

Bargarh - 768028

2.    Intex Technologies (India) Ltd.

       D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi -110020 (India)

3.   Prakash Informatics,

      1^st lane, J.M. Colony, Budharaja, Sambalpur                              .………….. Opp. Parties

       For Complainant               :           Dr. R.K. Maharana, Md. Jafar, Sayed Sabir Rehman

       For O.P.s No.1, 2 &3        :         

        PRESENT:-  SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT

                              SMT. S. TRIPATHY, MEMBER

                              SHRI K.D.DASH, MEMBER

Date of Order: 20.06.2018                                 

Shri A.P. Mund, President

Case of the petitioner/complainant is as follows:-

1. The complaint is the father of his minor son Saikh Abdullah @ Sameer representing  as minor’s  guardian and father as the Mobile set is purchased in the name of his minor son.
2. The  O.P. No. 1 is the Dealer from whom the petitioner has purchased the mobile set and the O.P. No. 2 is the manufacturer of the Intex mobile and  the O.P. No. 3 is the authorized service centre of Intex mobile and all are jointly severally liable. O.P. No. 1 was deleted from the record vide order dtd. 17.10.17
3. On dt. 12.03.15  the petitioner purchased the Intex  mobile set being model Intex Aqua V2 with  IMEL No. 911415901682060   & 911415901682078 by paying Rs. 3200/- (Rupees Three thousand two  hundred) only  and the O.P. No. 1 has issued a cash memo being No. 423  dt. 12.03.15  giving one year warranty period on the said handset  to that effect and presently the petitioner  is availing the said warranty period presently.
4. On dt. 12.03.15 the mobile touch screen did not work. The mobile was given to authorized service centre of Intex. After that, the said mobile  hand set started creating troubles time to time and the service centre has repaired the said mobile  and its service slips are issued to the  petitioner.
5. On dt. 22.05.15  the touch screen of the said mobile  set did not function  and the petitioner gave the set at  Sambalpur service centre of Intex mobile named as Prakash Informatics, 1^st Lane , J.M. Colony, Budharaja, Sambalpur. Repaired Mobile handset started functioning and again on dt. 25.05.15 the mobile created keypad problem and  software problem. On dt. 29.12.15  it became completely dead and did not function and it was repaired. On dt. 23.01.16 the Mobile gave trouble of  touch screen problem and it was given for repairing to the service centre.  The said mobile had different problems for 05 times before the expiry of the warranty and the same problems persist as before.
6. The petitioner has purchased the mobile by paying due amount but not using properly due to those mechanical manufacturing defects and the O.P. No. 1 has denied to provide a  new mobile set instead of that Mobile set and as such, the petitioner  has got harassed and has been passing through mental agony and for that wants a compensation amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand ) only.

On the basis of above  the complainant prays for ;

That the O.P’s  be directed to provide a new Intex Mobile  set in exchange of the said defective mobile set and also to pay a  compensation amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only as the petitioner has undergone harassment and mental agony.

Documents relied on:

1. Photocopy of Cash memo issued by the O.P. no. 1
2. Photocopy of service request report issued by Service centre of Intex Mobile.
3. Mobile messages given by the Service Centre of Intex.
4. Any other document found relevant will be produced at the time of hearing.

O.P. No. 1 was deleted vide order dt. 17.10.16. The O.P’s No. 2 & 3 were properly noticed. They chose not to appear. Hence they were set ex-parte on dt. 13.06.16. They did not  participate at the time of hearing. Hence we do not have any defense from their side.

Heard the argument from the side of complainant. Perused the record the affidavit filed and the documents filed.

Only one issue remain as to whether the complainant was deprived of using the mobile set to his satisfaction as borne out from the record.

 The record shows that the hand set was purchased on 12.03.15  for Rs.3200/-.As per service record it was repaired  5 times on 22.05.15, 5.7.15, 17.10.15, 2.1.16   & lastly 23.1.16.

In a year it was serviced 5 times and as per version of the complainant the mobile is still running. No where he has made out that the set is dead or dysfunctional.

Only because the set is running out of warranty period the complainant has come up  with this case. He has not shown  as to how this Forum will replace a running set and when the O.P’s  have  given service  for 5 times within  the warranty period.

Hence, the case is dismissed. No order as to cost.

                  Sd/-                                                                                        .            Sd/-

SHRI A.P.MUND, I agree                                                                     SMT S.TRIPATHY

   PRESIDENT                                                                                           Member                

.

.                 Sd/-                                                                                               Sd/-   

 SHRI K.D.DASH.  Member  I agree.                                             Dictated and corrected by me.

                                                                                                                 Member.