DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.291/15

Sh. Pawan Kumar (minor)

through his father Sh. Rajender Kumar

Plot No.21, JJ Colony, Phase-3,

Madan Pur Khadar,

South Delhi, Delhi-110076                                            …. Complainant

Versus

1.       Technocare Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

          E-14, Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar-2,

          New Delhi-110024

2.       The Mobile Store

          Shop No.11, Plot No.5

          A Block Market, Sarita Vihar

          New Delhi-110076

3.       Intex Technologises India Ltd.

          D-18/2 Okhla Industrial Area,

          Phase-II, New Delhi-110020                       …. Opposite parties

                                                          Date of Institution          : 15.10.15                                              Date of Order        :  29.11.16 

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant had purchased an Intex Aqua Power handset on 14.09.15 from OP No.2 manufactured by OP No.3  for a sum of Rs.9500/-. The  mobile phone was not working properly due to non charging. He visited the authorized service centre (OP1) on 21.09.15 & 30.09.15 but the defects were not rectified. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The Complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the cost of the handset to the Complainant, pay Rs.45,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the Complainant and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

OPs were proceeded exparte vide order dated 25.02.2016.

Complainant has filed his affidavit in exparte evidence.  We heard the arguments of the father of the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.

Complainant  has placed on record a copy of invoice dated 14.09.15 which shows that the Complainant had purchased a mobile for a sum of Rs.9,500/- from OP No.2 manufactured by OP No.3 (for the purpose of identification we mark the invoice as Annexure-1). The Complainant  submitted his phone with the OP No.1 for data cable not working dated 21.09.15 (for the purpose of identification we mark the invoice as Annexure-2).  The Complainant  further submitted his phone with OP No.1 vide invoice dated 12.10.15  wherein the problem was reported as “charging  show but not store, hanging problem.” (for the purpose of identification we mark the invoice as Annexure-3).

OPs have the knowledge about the filing of the complaint but have not chosen to contest it.

Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the Complainant have remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the Complainant. Therefore, we hold OP No.1 & 3 guilty of unfair trade practice. We allow the complaint and direct OP3 (manufactur)  to refund the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs.9,500/- alognwith Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and litigation expenses to the Complainant within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP 3 shall become liable to pay the said amount of Rs.9,500/- along with interest @ Rs.6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

           Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 29.11.16.