BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 06 of 2016
Date of Institution: 01.1.2016
Date of Decision :28.04.2016
1344/9, Gali Jattanwali, Inside Lahauri Gate, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- M/s. Talwar Enterprises, Shop No.2, Golden Market, Near Chowk Shastri Market, Amritsar through its Prop./Partner/Manager/Authorized Signatory
- Planet Telecom (ETCP Amritsar) 37 SF Nehru Shopping Complex, Lawrence Road, Amritsar 143001 (Authorized service centre of Intex Mobiles)
- Intex Company Service D-18/2, Okhla Ind.Area,Phase II, New Delhi 110020 (India)
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : In person
For the Opposite Party No.1 : Sh. Inderjit Lakhra,Advocate
For Opposite parties No.2 & 3 : Ex-parte
Quorum
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sanjeev Kumar, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant purchased one mobile handset of Intex made bearing IMEI No. 911428650438204 from opposite party No.1 vide bill/cash memo No. 102 dated 17.3.2015 for a sum of Rs. 9500/-, copy of the cash memo is attached. At the time of selling the mobile handset in dispute, opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that mobile handset has been manufactured by a very reputed company and it will not give any chance for its complaint in the near future. It is on the assurance of opposite party No.1, that complainant purchased the said mobile handset. But , however, assurances of opposite party No.1 proved to be false and the said mobile set started giving various problems in it including touch problem hanging, vibration of screen and other problems. The complainant immediately reported the matter to opposite party No.1, who advised him to approach opposite party No.2 i.e. service centre. The complainant approached the service centre i.e. opposite party No.2 and complained about the problems in the gadget . Opposite party No.2 retained the gadget for 20-25 days and thereafter delivered the same to the complainant stating that problems have been removed by replacing the mother board. But, however, on receiving the mobile handset, complainant came to know that the same problems still persist and the mobile handset was not working properly. The job sheet given to the complainant was taken back by opposite party No.2 while delivering back the mobile handset to the complainant. Since the purchase of the mobile handset the complainant remained visiting opposite parties for getting the mobile handset repaired and also with the request to replace the set with new one of same make and model. But , however, complainant came to know that the model which the complainant purchased suffered from various defects and cannot be set right by any repair. Again on 18.12.2015 complainant handed over the mobile handset to opposite party No.2 for its repair suffering from the same problems stated above. But again opposite party
stated that its mother board is to be changed. The complainant was astonished to know that previously also, opposite party No.2 has changed the mother board of the mobile set and opposite party No.2 was again stating to change the mother board. As a matter of fact, the mobile set in question cannot be set right by any sort of repair as it suffered from manufacturing defects. The complainant has suffered huge mental agony, harassment and inconvenience. As such a prayer to make necessary repair or to replace the mobile handset in dispute and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses to the extent of Rs. 5000/-.
2. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties, as such they were proceeded against ex-parte. However, on 29.2.2016 Sh.Inderjit Lakhra,Adv.appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 and filed memo of appearance and he was allowed to join the proceedings at that stage.
3. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith copy of cash memo/bill Ex.C-3 and copy of job card Ex.C-2 and closed his evidence.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence, counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Vinod Talwar Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.
5. We have heard the complainant in person and ld.counsel for opposite party No.1 and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the mobile handset in dispute from opposite party No.1 vide cash memo Ex.C-3 for an amount of Rs. 9500/-. However, from the very beginning the mobile handset in dispute suffered from various problems like touch problem, hanging, vibration of screen and other problems and the complainant approached opposite party No.1, who advised him to approach opposite party No.2 for getting necessary repairs. But, however, the defects pointed out by the complainant could not be rectified despite replacing the mother board of the gadget. The complainant contended that mobile handset was being retained by the opposite party No.2 since 18.12.2015 and it has failed to return the same despite making a number of visits. It is contended that the opposite party may be directed either to repair the mobile handset in dispute to his satisfaction or to replace the same with a new mobile handset of the same make and quality or refund the sale price with interest and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- and litigation expenses to be assessed by this Forum.
7. However, on the other hand, ld.counsel for opposite party No.1 has vehemently contended that the defects pointed out by the complainant were to be rectified by opposite parties No.2 & 3 , who have been proceeded against ex-parte. Opposite party No.1 was a retailer and he has nothing to do with the alleged defects as well as the failure on the part of the service centre i.e. opposite party No.2 regarding the repairs and it is contended that the case may be disposed of while any liability may not be imposed upon the opposite parties.
8. We have gone through the thoughtful consideration of the rival contentions. It is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile handset in dispute vide cash memo/bill, copy whereof is Ex.C-3 on 17.3.2015 for a consideration of Rs. 9500/- from the opposite party No.1. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant had approached the opposite party No.1 for getting the mobile handset repaired because it suffered from various defects like touch problem, hanging, vibration of screen and other problems. But, however, mobile handset could not be repaired by opposite party No.2 despite visiting for a number of times. However, there is no documentary record regarding the visit of the complainant to service centre i.e. opposite party No.2 except for ones i.e. 18.12.2015. But the very fact that opposite party No.2 has been retaining the gadget since then and have failed to deliver the same to the consumer/complainant so far which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.3 being manufacturer and opposite party No.1 being retailer are also jointly and severally liable alongwith opposite party No.2.
9. Consequently, instant complaint succeeds to the extent that opposite parties repair the mobile handset in dispute to the satisfaction of the complainant and for that purpose they are given one month’s time from the date of delivery of the copy of the order. If requisite repairs are not provided to the satisfaction of the complainant or the gadget in dispute is not repaired within the stipulated period, opposite parties shall refund the sale price i.e. Rs. 9500/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a from the date of passing of the order until full and final recovery. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 28.4.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
