Haryana

Karnal

CC/267/2015

Anil Kumar Arora S/o Arjun Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director, Intex Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Kailash Chopra

03 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No.267 of 2015

                                                             Date of instt.:29.10.2015

                                                               Date of decision 3.5.2015

 

Anil Kumar Arora son of Shri Arjun Dass resident of House no.162/4 Hari Pura, Gharaunda, District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1.The Director, Itex Company Ltd., D-18/2 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020.

2. Himanshu Mobile Repair, near S.D. Mandir, Gharaunda, Tehsil Gharanuda, District Karnal through its proprietor.

3. Luxmi Telecom (Panipat) shop no.1 plot no.260/4 Bishan Swaroop Colony, Main Road near Prem Hospital Panipat through its Proprietor.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Ms. Veena Rani………Member

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:-      Shri Kailash Chopra Advocate for complainant.

                    Opposite parties exparte.

                                       

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased a mobile hand set Model Jutak Grand Colour-Black from opposite party for a sum of Rs.1380/-, vide invoice no.333 dated 28.9.2014, with a warranty of one year.  After few days, the said mobile set started giving problem of voice He approached the opposite party no.2 and explained about the problem of the mobile set. The opposite party no.2 assured him that the problem would be removed, therefore, he deposited the mobile set. After repair of the mobile set, opposite party no.2 handed over the same to him, but the same problem occurred again. Thereafter, he again approached the opposite party no.2 for repair of the mobile set and he deposited the mobile set, vide job sheet dated 1.5.2015. Opposite party no.2 returned the mobile phone, but the mobile set was not working properly.  Thereafter, he again deposited the mobile set with the opposite party no.2 for removal of the faults, but after several efforts opposite party no.2 could not rectify the defects.  Ultimately, he served a legal notice dated 11.8.2015 upon the opposite parties in that regard, but the same did not yield any result. Such acts on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service on their part, which caused him mental agony, harassment and financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties. None put into appearance on behalf of opposite parties despite service, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against them, vide order dated 21.3.2016.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex. CW1A and documents Ex.C2 to C9 have been tendered.

4                 We have heard the learned counsel of complainant and have also gone through the documents placed on file carefully.

5.                The complainant purchased mobile hand set model Jutak Grand Colour-Black from opposite party no.2 for a sum of Rs.1380/-, vide bill dated 28.9.2014, the copy of which is Ex.C2.  As per allegations of the complainant, after few days the mobile set was not working properly, as problem of voice occurred, so he reported the matter to opposite party no.2 the authorized service centre of the company, who kept the hand set for rectification of defects, but did not rectify the defects and returned the mobile set. The complainant has also filed his affidavit in support of his allegations. The copy of the job sheet Ex.C3 clearly shows that the mobile set was having problems of display and voice during warranty period. Thus, evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It was the duty of the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 either to rectify the defects or in case the defects were not repairable then replace the mobile set of the complainant. Hence, it is well proved that the service of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 was deficient.

6.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to repair the defects of the mobile to the satisfaction of the complainant and if the defects cannot be removed then to replace the mobile set in question of the complainant with new one of the same value. We further direct the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to  pay Rs.1100/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 3.5.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                             (Veena Rani)         (Anil Sharma)   

                               Member                 Member