Order dictated by:

Sh. Anoop Sharma,Presiding Member

1.       Kamal Kumar has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that   complainant purchased one mobile set model Intex Aqua R4+ Brown from opposite party No.1 worth Rs.2550/- on 18.8.2016. Opposite party No.1 is the authorized dealer of opposite party No.2 (manufacturer) and opposite party No.3 is the authorized service centre of opposite party No.2. At the time of purchase of the said mobile, opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that the said mobile phone is having various latest features. On this assurance complainant had purchased the said mobile set.  During the warranty period , the aforesaid mobile phone developed some manufacturing defect and became totally dead. The complainant approached opposite party No.3 being authorized service centre of opposite party No.2 and handed over the said defective mobile set to them vide work order No.2 dated 26.8.2016 with the complaint that the mobile set has become totally dead . This remark was duly put on the work order/job sheet No. 1084 dated 26.8.2016 and opposite party No.3 assured the complainant that they will set right the mobile set within 10 days and will hand over the same to him. Thereafter complainant visited the opposite party No.3 many times and requested them to hand over the mobile set , but the opposite party No.3 putting off the matter on one pretext or the other  and till date the mobile set has not been returned to the complainant. Rather opposite party No.3 told the complainant that the set is beyond repair and cannot be set right due to manufacturing/inherent defect in the mobile set. The complainant also visited opposite party No.1 and requested them to replace the said defective mobile with new one but to no avail. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs  vide instant complaint:-

(i)      Opposite parties be directed to replace the defective mobile with a new one or in the alternative to refund the price thereof i.e. Rs. 2550/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization ;

(ii)     Opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10000/-  alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10000/-.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Opposite parties No.1 to 3  did not opt to put in appearance despite service of notice, as such they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

3.       In his bid to prove the case complainant in his ex-parte evidence tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of the bill dated 18.8.2016 Ex.C-2, copy of job sheet dated 26.8.2016 Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.

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

5.       From the perusal of the record, it becomes evident that complainant purchased online one mobile handset model Intex  Aqua R4+ Brown from opposite party No.1 for an amount of Rs. 2550/- on 18.8.2016. Copy of the bill accounts for Ex.C-2 on record. It has been the case of the complainant that within the warranty period the mobile hand set developed some manufacturing defect and became totally dead. For the said purpose complainant approached opposite party No.3 being authorized service centre of opposite party No.2 and handed over the said defective mobile set to them. Opposite party No.3 issued job sheet No. 1084 dated 26.8.2016 and told the complainant that they will set right the mobile set within  10 days  and will hand over the same to the complainant. Copy of job sheet accounts for Ex.C-3 on record. But, however, opposite party No.3 has been retaining the mobile handset in dispute and told the complainant that the set is beyond repair and cannot be set right due to manufacturing/inherent defect in the said mobile set. Thereafter the complainant approached opposite party No.1 and requested them to replace the said mobile set with new one but to no effect.

6.       The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as opposite parties, despite due service, did not opt to appear and contest the complaint and thereby the opposite parties impliedly  admitted the claim of the complainant, which further shows that the opposite parties had no defence to offer for contesting the case of the complainant. The very fact that opposite party No.3 has been retaining the mobile handset in dispute since 26.8.2016 and also clearly told the complainant that the mobile handset was beyond the scope of repair. In such a situation, the effective remedy available to the complainant would be to replace the mobile handset with new one of same make or model or to refund of the price of the mobile handset in dispute.  As the complainant has been harassed in the hands of the opposite parties, as such complainant is entitled to compensation .The act and conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service.

7.       Consequently we allow the instant complaint ex-parte with directions to opposite parties to replace the mobile handset with new one of same make and model or to refund  the sale price of the mobile handset in dispute amounting to Rs.2550/- . Opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2000/-. Cost of the litigation are assessed at Rs. 1000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which, complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. . Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. 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 : 20.1.2017

/R/