BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.689 of 2015

Date of Institution: 01-12-2015

Date of Decision: 15-03-2016

Darshan Singh son of Late S.Piara Singh, resident of 566-Basant Avenue, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. Rose Collecton through its partner/ proprietor, Shop No. 27, Liberty Market, Railway Link Road, Amrtisar-143001.
2. Planet Telecom through is partner/ proprietor, Authorized Service Centre, INTEX Mobiles 37-Second Floor, Nehru Shopping Complex, Lawrence Road, Amritsar.
3. Intex Technologies (India) Limited through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Director, D-18/2, Okhla Ind.Area, Phase II, New Delhi-110020. 

Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

Present:  For the Complainant: In person.

               For the Opposite Parties: Exparte.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Darshan Singh, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that  he purchased Mobile Set make Intex Fame from Opposite Party No.1  vide invoice dated 24.4.2015 for Rs.1300/-. Complainant alleges that Mobile Set of the complainant stopped working and he approached Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre on 22.10.2015, but Opposite Party No.2 refused to repair the Mobile Set in question. The complainant then served legal notice on 26.10.2015 upon the Opposite Parties to replace the Mobile Set of the complainant in question with new one  and to pay the damage to the tune of Rs.13,000/- due to deficiency of service  on the part of the Opposite Parties, but to no affect.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the mobile set  in question with new one.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, initially Sh.Jaspreet Singh, proprietor of Opposite Party No.1 appeared,  but later on, none appeared nor filed the written  version on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, so Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.2.2016 of this Forum. Similarly, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 despite service, so Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 were also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.1.2016 of this Forum. 
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of legal notice C3, postal receipts Ex.C4 to Ex.C6  and closed the exparte evidence on behalf of the complainant.  
4. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the complainant; arguments advanced by the complainant and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the complainant.
5. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and averments of the complaint and evidence produced by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant purchased Mobile Set make Intex Fame from Opposite Party No.1  vide invoice dated 24.4.2015 (Ex.C2) for Rs.1300/-. Said Mobile Set carrying one year warranty. Complainant submitted that said Mobile Set stopped working and the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre on 22.10.2015, but Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre refused to repair the Mobile Set of the complainant. The complainant then served legal notice dated 26.10.2015 Ex.C3 upon the Opposite Parties  through speed post, postal receipts of which are Ex.C4 to Ex.C6, but inspite of that Opposite Parties  neither repaired the Mobile Set of the complainant nor  replaced the same with new one. Complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties qua the complainant.
6.    The complainant has produced on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 to prove the averments in the complaint, as well as invoice of Mobile Set in question Ex.C2, and copy of legal notice Ex.C3 which was duly served upon the Opposite Parties. Initially Sh.Jaspreet Singh, proprietor of Opposite Party No.1 appeared,  but later on none appeared nor filed the written  version on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, so Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.2.2016 of this Forum. Similarly, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 despite service nor any person on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 dared to file affidavit to rebut the evidence produced by the complainant. So, the case of the complainant and evidence produced by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged. As such, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased Mobile Set from Opposite Party No.1 vide Invoice dated 22.4.2015 Ex.C5 for a sum of Rs.1300/- with warranty of one year. Said Mobile Set stopped working and the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre to get rectify the problem in the Mobile Set in question, but Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre refused to repair the Mobile Set of the complainant. The complainant also served legal notice Ex.C3 upon the Opposite Parties  which was  duly served upon the Opposite Parties, but inspite of that, Opposite Parties  neither repaired the Mobile Set of the complainant nor replaced the same with new one. All this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. The liability of Opposite Party No.1 is only to sell the Mobile Set to the complainant whereas the warranty of the Mobile Set is to be provided by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 i.e. manufacturer and Authorised Service Centre. It stands fully proved on record that the Mobile Set of the complainant is not repairable. As such, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are liable to replace the Mobile Set of the complainant with new one.
7. Resultantly, we allow the complaint of the complainant exparte with cost and the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are directed to replace the Mobile Set of the complainant with new one of same make and model, or to refund the price of the mobile set  i.e. Rs. 1300/-, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 shall be liable to refund the price of the Mobile Set i.e. Rs.1300/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.  Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Dated: 15-03-2016.                                          (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member