BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 213 of 2016

Date of Institution: 5.5.2016

Date of Decision: 13.07.2016  

Jaswant Singh 44 years, son of Baldev Singh resident of House No. 182, Akash Avenue, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Opposite Gurdwara , Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

1. M/s. Nokia Space Electronics, Hall Bazar, Amritsar through its Prop./Partner/Principal Officer
2. Intex Customer Service 37, 2^nd Floor, Nehru Shopping Complex, Lawrence Road, Amritsar through its Prop./Partner/authorized person to receive the summons
3. Customer Care Cell Intex Technologies Ltd., D 18/2,Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant:  In person

              For Opposite Parties   : Ex-parte

Coram

Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Jaswant Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  complainant purchased one mobile INTEX-STAR II  vide bill No. 4445 dated 7.12.2015 for Rs. 7100/- from opposite party No.1 and thus the complainant is the consumer under the definition of Consumer Protection Act,1986 and has the authority to file the complaint against the  opposite parties. Copy of the bill dated 7.12.2015 is enclosed with the complaint. From the date of the purchase of the mobile after 7 days , it became defective and the mobile functioned properly for a period of 6 days only. The complainant made complaint with opposite party No.1 that display of the mobile is out of order and opposite party No.1 directed the complainant to contact opposite party No.2 regarding non functioning of the mobile. Firstly the battery was not functioning and the same was replaced. After replacement the battery hardly functioned  properly for 16 days  in the month of January 2016. Then the complainant further referred the matter to opposite party No.2 vide complaint dated 16.2.2016 and vide job sheet No. 9582943043 and then further on 23.2.2016 job sheet No. 9582943043, the complainant was made to sit there  for about two to three hours daily and later on he was directed to go back as the mobile has not been repaired. The lady employee who was managing the service centre  dealt with the complaint badly.  Ultimately the complainant deposited the mobile set on 12.3.2016 for repair with the opposite party. But the same has not been repaired so far as display cannot be put on working condition due to defect in the set. The complainant has sought for grant of following reliefs vide instant complaint :-

(i)      Opposite parties be directed to refund the cost of the mobile set ie.. Rs. 7100/- alongwith 24% per annum interest from the date of purchase till payment.

(ii)     Compensation of Rs. 20000/- be also granted to the complainant for harassment and mental agony.

(iii)    Cost of the complaint be also awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, despite due service none put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties to contest the complaint, as such opposite parties were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

3.       In his ex-parte evidence complainant Jaswant Singh made  into witness box as his own witness as CW1 and tendered his duly sworn affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The complainant has tendered into evidence copy of retail invoice Ex.C-2, copy of service request Ex.C-3 and closed his evidence.

4.       We have heard the complainant in person and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

5.       The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased mobile hand set  INTEX-STAR II vide invoice , copy whereof is Ex.C-2 for a consideration of Rs. 7100/- from opposite party No.1. But, however, the mobile set in dispute became defective after 7 days of its purchase. The complainant visited the service centre of opposite party No.1 for several times . But, however, neither the battery nor the display of the mobile set in dispute could be rectified. Ultimately the complainant deposited the mobile hand set in dispute for repairs on 12.3.2016 with opposite party No.2 vide job sheet Ex.C-3 and the mobile hand set is lying there and has not been repaired so far. It is the case of the complainant that mobile hand set is beyond the scope of repair. Therefore, either the opposite parties may be directed to replace the mobile  hand set or refund the price of the mobile hand set to him alongwith interest. But, however, complainant has not pressed into service any report of the expert to reach the conclusion that the mobile hand set in dispute was beyond the scope of repair or the same suffered from some manufacturing defect. In such a situation, his request for  replacement or refund of the price of the mobile hand set , is not acceptable at this stage. The complainant is entitled to the repair of the mobile hand set in dispute free of cost as the mobile hand set is still within its warranty period. As such opposite parties No.1 to 3 are jointly and  severally & co-extensively liable to repair the mobile hand set in dispute within 30  days of the receipt of copy of this order ; failing which, they shall be liable to refund the sale price of the mobile hand set in dispute alongwith interest @ 6% p.a from the date of  filing of the complaint until full and final recovery. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 13.7.2016

/R/