Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1081/2015

Abhishek Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Subhash Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Nem Kumar

04 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                       

                                                Complaint No.  1081

                                                Instituted on:    17.09.2015

                                                Decided on:       04.05.2016

 

Abhishek Goyal aged 33 years son of Shri Kesho Ram, resident of H.No.12B/36, Shivpuri Mohalla, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Subhash Telecom through its Proprietor/ Partner/Manager, Kranti Chowk, Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

2.             Bansal Sales Agencies, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager, adjoining Syndicate Bank, MK Road, Dhuri.

3.             Intex Technologies India Ltd. through its Manager/MD, D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-110 020.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Nem Kumar, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Abhishek Goyal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Intex Mobile model Aqua style pro bearing serial number 911399200146906 from OP number 1 vide bill dated 12.09.2014 for Rs.7500/-. It has been further averred in the complaint that the mobile in question was having some inherent manufacturing defect and was giving display problem within the warranty period. As such, the complainant approached OP number 2 on 11.7.2015 for availing the benefit of warranty, as such the official of the OP number 2 kept the mobile set for repairs, but the defect from the mobile was not removed by OP number 2. Again the complainant approached Op number 2 on 1.8.2015 and as such, the OP number 2 gave a new mobile set without its box bearing IMEI number 911439600352126 with another warranty of one year.  It is further averred that the complainant on using the mobile set in question found that the same is also of inferior version of Intex company, as the mobile set supplied to the complainant was having camera of 5 MP and internal memory of 4 GB only while earlier mobile set was having camera of 8 MP and 8GB of internal memory.  As such, the complainant approached the OP number 3 by calling on its customer care number, who told that the mobile set supplied to the complainant is having lesser price than that of the original one.  As such, the complainant has contended that he approached the OP number 2 to get the matter cleared, but all in vain and the OP number 2 misbehaved with him.  As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the Aqua Q-2 model mobile set with defect free Aqua Stylo Pro model or refund him the amount of Rs.7500/- along with interest @18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 1 and 3 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 and 3 were  proceeded exparte on 19.11.2015. OP number 2 though filed reply of complaint on 08.01.2016, but on 5.4.2016, none appeared for OP number 2, as such OP number 2 was also proceeded exparte on 05.4.2016.

 

3.             In the reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is stated that the mobile set of the complainant was having problem and in this regard the complainant approached OP number 2 and OP number 2 after checking the mobile set found it to be suffering from manufacturing the defect , as such Op number 2 replaced the mobile set with a new one.  It is further averred that the Op number 2 gave new mobile set and the complainant selected the same as per his wishes/choice and the OP number 2 on the request of the complainant gave him mobile set i.e. Intex Aqua Q-2 model on 1.8.2015 in place of defective mobile set in a sealed box, which was accepted by him in his full satisfaction.   It is further averred that after some times on 12.9.2015, the complainant approached OP number 2 and requested that he is not happy with the mobile set and requested to replace it with a new one, as such the OP number 2 refused to replace the same as there was no defect therein. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 affidavits, Ex.C-3 copy of bill dated 12.9.2014, Ex.C-4 copy of job sheet, Ex.C-5 copy of data of comparison of mobile model, Ex.C-6 copy of features of model Aqua-Q2, Ex.C-7 copy of features of model, Ex.C-8 copy of warranty card and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party number 2 and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-3 is the copy of the invoice dated 12.09.2014 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.7500/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 1.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant became defective as there was defects therein, as such, the OPs replaced the mobile set with another one, as is evident from the copy of bill, Ex.C-3 with further one year warranty. It is further on the file that the replaced mobile set supplied by OP number 2 was also defective one, as such the complainant approached OP number 2 for its replacement or refund of the price of the mobile set, but nothing was done by the OPs.  Ex.C-4 is the copy of job order sheet.  On the other hand, the OPs chose to remain exparte and further failed to defend their case by leading cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence in case of their contention.    As such, we feel that it is a fit case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs by selling the defective mobile set to the complainant.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.7500/- being the cost of the mobile set, however, subject to the returning of the mobile set in question along with all the accessories to the Ops at the time of receiving the payment of the mobile set.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 4, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member