BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No.149 of 2015
Date of Institution: 12-03-2015
Date of Decision :07.09.2015
Simarjit Singh S/o Balkar Singh r/o Batala, District Gurdaspur
Complainant
Versus
M/s. Nagpal Electronics & Mobile Centre, Shop No. 13-14, Baba Deep Singh Market, Ravi Das Road, Hall Bazar, Amritsar through its partner/prop.
M/s. Jasbir Telecom through its prop. Authorized service centre of Intex, Opp.Kali Da Dhaba, Jail Road, Near Kichlu Chowk,Amritsar.
M/s. Perfect Mobile Repair Centre, Shop No. 19-20, Simran Plaza Market, 210-A, Queens Road, Amritsar through its Prop/partner
Intex Technologies Industries, D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area,Phase-II, New Delhi 110020, India
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Inderjit Lakra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party:1: Exparte.
For Opposite Party No.2: Sh.Sanjeet Singh, Advocate
For Opposite Party No.3: Exparte.
For Opposite Party No.4: Exparte.
Quorum:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.
- Present complaint has been filed by Simarjit Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one Mobile Set Cloud Y.2 (Intex) of upper quality from Opposite Party No.1 vide Invoice No. 1496 dated 14.11.2013 for a sum of Rs.6300/- with one year warranty. Said Mobile Set became defective as it was not working properly. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 authorized service centre of Intex Company and brought the defect/ problem in the Mobile Set to their notice being faced by him and Opposite Party No.2 kept the Mobile Set against job sheet, but they could not repair the same. On 18.11.2014 the Opposite Party No.2 in place of the aforesaid Mobile Set of upper quality, handed over to the complainant another set of low quality of Model T.5. The complainant used the said Mobile Set, but that Mobile Set too also did not function properly. The complainant again approached Opposite Party No.2 and requested them to hand over the original Mobile Set of upper quality in a proper working condition, but they told that the authorised service centre of the company is Opposite Party No.3 and he should approach the Opposite Party No.3 for the same. Then the complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 and handed over the Mobile Set to Opposite Party No.3 on 9.1.2015 against job sheet and also brought to their notice that this set is of lower quality and it does not serve the purpose of the complainant and requested them to hand over his original Mobile set, in fully functional condition. In return opposite party No.1 issued letter dated 19.1.2015 to the complainant stating that technical details of permanent failure as INR error, address resolution of intextechnology.com.failed. Domain name not found and another letter dated 23.1.2015 thereby apologizing for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. According to the complainant the said set is lying with opposite party No.3 and they failed to hand over the original set in a working condition. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to hand over the original set of upper quality of the same band or to refund its total price alongwith interest . Compensation of Rs. 10000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 service centre on 26.10.2014 as per job sheet No. 4102621010T001 with dead handset. Opposite party No.2 inplace of the aforesaid mobile set of upper quality handed over to the complainant another set of low quality of Model T.5 with lower features and having lower price value, to the complainant on 18.11.2014. Again the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 with Auto Off problem and also lower value/ lower features mobile set and demanded same model Mobile Set or costs of the Mobile Set. Opposite Party No.2 kept the Mobile Set in question and called the company Manager to supply the spare parts, but the complainant did not send the spare parts and Ultimately, Opposite Party No.2 personally visited the company office at Ludhiana and the Opposite Party No.2 took back the repaired Mobile Set by hand for delivery to the customer and the complainant checked the Mobile Set and took the same with him. Then the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 with problem automatic off vide job Sheet No. 41120202102R001S. And this time the Mobile Set was pending before the service centre because the company has not supplied them the spare parts of the such mobile set. So, the Mobile Set in question remained pending with Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter, the agreement of Opposite Party No.2 with the company was terminated on 24.11.2014. Opposite Party No.2 again approached Opposite Party No.3 to supply the spare parts/ accessories for pending repair hand sets with Opposite Party No.2, but the company was not ready to listen the request of the Opposite Party No.2. Then Opposite Party No.2 personally approached company office at Ludhiana on 8.1.2015 and on the same day, the company returned the said Mobile Set in question to Opposite Party No.2 by stating that now the hand set is OK. Then Opposite Party No.2 called the complainant and handed over the Mobile Set and also informed to the complainant that Opposite Party No.2 has left the service centre of this company and in future, the complainant should approach Opposite Party No.3. However after receiving Mobile Set in question the complainant left the office of Opposite Party No.2 and thereafter, he never approached Opposite Party No.2. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite parties No.1 & 4 did not appear despite service of notice, as such they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.4.2015. Initially opposite party No.2 did not appear ,as such it was also proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.4.2015, but later on opposite party No.2 put appearance through Sh. Sanjeet Singh,Adv and he was allowed to join the proceedings at that stage. Opposite party No.3 also put appearance through Sh.Gagandeep Bawa, Manager of opposite party No.3 and the case was adjourned for filing written version by opposite party No.3. But thereafter opposite party No.3 did not appear and it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.5.2015.
4. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the complainant and opposite party No.2 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the complainant and opposite party No.2.
5. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased one Mobile Set Cloud Y.2 (Intex) from Opposite Party No.1 vide Invoice No. 1496 dated 14.11.2013 Ex.C3 for a sum of Rs.6300/- with one year warranty. Said Mobile Set became defective as it was not working properly. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 authorized service centre of Intex Company and brought the defect/ problem in the Mobile Set to their notice being faced by him and Opposite Party No.2 kept the Mobile Set against job sheet, but they could not repair the same. On 18.11.2014 the Opposite Party No.2 in place of the aforesaid Mobile Set of upper quality, handed over to the complainant another set of low quality of Model T.5. The complainant used the said Mobile Set, but that Mobile Set too also did not function properly. The complainant again approached Opposite Party No.2 and requested them to hand over the original Mobile Set of upper quality in a proper working condition, but they told that the authorised service centre of the company is Opposite Party No.3 and he should approach the Opposite Party No.3 for the same. Then the complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 and handed over the Mobile Set to Opposite Party No.3 on 9.1.2015 agianst job sheet Ex.C2 and also brought to their notice that this set is of lower quality and it does not serve the purpose of the complainant and requested Opposite Party No.3 to hand over his original Mobile Set produced by him, in fully functional condition, but Opposite Party wrote letter to complainant Ex.C6 dated 19.1.2015 and letter dated 23.1.2015 Ex.C7 stating that they have forwarded the request to the company/ concerned department to find out the solution for the problem of the complainant. Said Mobile Set is still lying with Opposite Party No.3 and Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 failed to hand over the original Mobile Set to the complainant in fully functional condition. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
6. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 service centre on 26.10.2014 as per job sheet No. 4102621010T001 with dead handset. On 18.11.2014 opposite party No.2 in place of aforesaid mobile set of upper quality handed over to the complainant another set of lower quality model T.5. Again the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 with Auto Off problem and also lower value/ lower features mobile set and demanded same model Mobile Set or costs of the original Mobile Set. Opposite Party No.2 kept the Mobile Set in question and called the company Manager to supply the spare parts, but the complainant did not send the spare parts and Ultimately, Opposite Party No.2 personally visited the company office at Ludhiana and the Opposite Party No.2 took back the repaired Mobile Set by hand for delivery to the customer and the complainant checked the Mobile Set and took the same with him. Then the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 with problem automatic off vide job Sheet No. 41120202102R001S. And this time the Mobile Set was pending before the service centre because the company has not supplied them the spare parts of the such mobile set. So, the Mobile Set in question remained pending with Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter, the agreement of Opposite Party No.2 with the company was terminated on 24.11.2014. Opposite Party No.2 again approached Opposite Party No.3 to supply the spare parts/ accessories for pending repair hand sets with Opposite Party No.2, but the company was not ready to listen the request of the Opposite Party No.2. Then Opposite Party No.2 personally approached company office at Ludhiana on 8.1.2015 and on the same day, the company returned the said Mobile Set in question to Opposite Party No.2 by stating that now the hand set is OK. Then Opposite Party No.2 called the complainant and handed over the Mobile Set and also informed to the complainant that Opposite Party No.2 has left the service centre of this company and in future, the complainant should approach Opposite Party No.3. However after receiving Mobile Set in question the complainant left the office of Opposite Party No.2 and thereafter, he never approached Opposite Party No.2. Ld.counsel for the opposite party No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2.
7. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased mobile set Y 2 (Intex) from the opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated 14.11.2013 Ex.C-3 for a sum of Rs. 6300/- with one year warranty. The said mobile set became defective. The complainant approached opposite party No.2, authorized service centre of Intex company and handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.2, who kept the mobile set but they could not repair the same. On 18.11.2014 opposite party No.2 in place of aforesaid mobile set of upper quality handed over to the complainant another set of lower quality of model T 5 as per job sheet Ex.C-5 dated 18.11.2014. The complainant accepted that mobile set under protest . The said mobile set when used also did not function properly. Opposite party No.2 sent original mobile set to the company on 18.11.2014. The complainant again approached opposite party No.2 and requested them to hand over the original mobile set which was of upper quality, in proper working condition but they told that now the authorized service centre of the company is opposite party No.3 and the complainant should approach opposite party No.3 for the same. Then complainant approached opposite party No.3 and handed over the second mobile set of lower quality to opposite party No.3 on 9.1.2015 against job sheet Ex.C-3. Opposite party No.4 manufacturer Intex company vide their letter Ex.C-7 dated 23.1.2015 through e-mail have admitted that they had received the set of the complainant and also begged apology for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. But opposite party No.4 i.e. manufacturer company has not sent back the original mobile set of the complainant after repair. All this shows that the mobile set of the complainant is not repairable. Therefore, opposite party No.4 manufacturer company is liable to either replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one or to refund the amount of the mobile set, to the complainant.
8. Resultantly we partly allow the complaint with costs and opposite party No.4 is directed to replace the original mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or 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 party No.4 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a on the price of the mobile set Rs. 6300/- from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. 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.
Dated: 07-09-2015.
(Bhupinder Singh) President
(Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
