Delhi

North East

CC/454/2015

Sh. Rajeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Orange Tel. & Anr - Opp.Party(s)

17 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 454/15

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Rajeev Kumar S/o Sh. Devi Prasad R/o H.No. 1/32-33, Welcome, Seelampur, Delhi-53.		Complainant
		Versus
	1         2	Orange Telecom Through its propriter A-147, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Opp. Pillar No.39, Delhi-110092.   M/s Intex Technologies (P) Ltd Through its Directors D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi-110020.		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		18.11.2015
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		16.10.2017
			DATE OF DECISION      :		17.10.2017

 

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:-

Order by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed under section 12 of The Consumer Protection act by Shri Rajeev Kumar, against Orange Telecom, OP1- Authorized Dealer, M/s Intex Technology, OP2- the manufacturer.

The facts of the present complaint are that on 1-2-2015, the complainant visited OP1 and purchased “INTEX AQUA XTREME” bearing IMEI                            Nos. 911416700210113 and 911416700250119 vide invoice No. 8012 for a sum of Rs. 11,500/-. The said handset was under one year warranty. It is stated that soon after purchase there was problem with the handset for which the complainant contacted OP1 where he was directed to approach service centre, details of which were provided by OP1. On 25-9-2015 the complainant deposited the handset with the service centre, where he was informed that he will get a call as and when the same was repaired. On 14-10-2015 the complainant was handed over the handset, which he found was still faulty. The complainant again visited service centre on 21-10-2015 but the problems continued to persist. Again on 22-10-2015, the complainant was informed by technician at the service centre that the said handset had some inherent defect which could not be rectified. Thereafter, the complainant visited OP1 for replacement which was flatly refused. It is stated that the complainant has suffered both mentally and financially as he advertises and takes orders on Electronic Media such as Whats-App and Facebook. Legal notice                        dated 23-10-2015 was sent to OPs which was neither replied nor complied with. Hence, the present complaint seeking directions to OPs to pay                        Rs. 11,500/- with interest 24% p.a. till realization, compensation of                          Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 35,000/- as litigation expenses.

Invoice dated 1-2-2015 issued by OP1, jobsheet dated 23-10-2015, copy of visiting card of complainant, legal notice dated 23-10-2015 alongwith postal receipts and envelops have been annexed with the complaint.

2. Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP1 and OP2 wherein OP1 was proceeded ex-parte as they refused to accept the summon.
3. OP2 filed their Written Statement where they took the plea that the complainant had purchased the Intex Mobile Handset from OP in good condition and after full satisfaction and had approached OP after seven months of purchase. It was further submitted that the complainant had visited the authorized service centre only once and there was no other jobsheet to support the averments of the complainant. It was further stated that the handset was repaired and returned to the complainant and it was the complainant who wanted new handset or refund. Hence, no deficiency in service could not be attributed on their part. Rest of the contents of the complaint were denied. 
4. In rejoinder, the complainant stated that the complainant had visited the service centre several times and the handset was lying with OP2 since                    25-9-2015. Rest of contents of the written statement were denied and those of the complaint were reiterated.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, where he has examined himself and has reiterated the contents of the complaint. He has got exhibit affidavit of evidence as Ex-CW1/1, invoice dated 1-2-2015 as                Ex- CW1/2, service request dated 23-10-2015 as Ex- CW1/3, business card of complainant as Ex-CW1/4, Legal Notice dated 23-10-2015 as Ex- CW1/5, report of refusal as Ex- CW6 (Colly) and postal receipt as Ex-CW1/7.
6. OP2 failed to file their evidence by way of affidavit despite several opportunities. Hence their right to file evidence was closed on 3-10-2016 and subsequently they stopped appearing.
7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel of the complainant and have gone through the material placed on record. The complainant has placed on record the invoice and jobsheet dated 23.10.2015 Ex as CW1/2 and Ex- CW1/3 respectively. If we take a look at the jobsheet issued by service centre of OP, the said handset was within warranty and the warranty remarks bear “Auto On/Off On Using Or Battery Swell Complete Rec”. So, its clear that the said handset within warranty period. Thus, OP2 has been deficient in providing services to the complainant as he was entitled to get his handset repaired under warranty term and conditions. OP2 in their written statement have stated that the handset was repaired and had been handed over to the complainant falls flat as on enquiry the complainant submitted that the said handset was still with the service centre. Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct OP2 to refund Rs. 9,775/- cost of handset (Rs. 11,500 – 15% depreciation) as the handset was used for more than 8 months alongwith 9% interest thereon from the date of order till realization, we also award Rs. 7,500/- as compensation inclusive of litigation charges.            
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on  17.10.2017)         

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member