Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/310/2017

Balwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Intex - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

10 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	310 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	03.04.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	10.08.2017

 

 

 

 

Balwinder Singh s/o Sh.Mehar Singh, #982, Sector 79, Mohali    

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  The Managing Director, Intex Technologies (India) Ltd., D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi 110020

2]  The Proprietor, Electra Care (Authorised Service Centre of Intex Mobiles), Quite Office No.1, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh 160022

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

 

Argued by: complainant in person.

 Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs

 

  

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant purchased mobile handset of Intex make from Anmol Watches, Sector 22, Chandigarh on 17.5.2016 by paying an amount of Rs.4999/-.  It is averred that the said handset did not work properly from the day one and it had a number of problems i.e. switching off, non-responsive touch, ear piece problem, automatic recording of calls etc. It is averred that the handset was taken to the service centre of OPs just after 3 days of its purchase and it was returned after 6/7 days by just replacing the ear piece.  However, the problem again developed in the repaired handset, so the complainant again visited the service centre of OPs on 11.7.2016 and requested for replacement of the mobile handset, but they refused.  It is submitted that thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before Consumer Fora, but withdrawn the same on the assurance of the OPs that now the handset will work properly.  However, the handset did not work for a single day and soon it stars malfunctioning, then the complainant filed another complaint and withdrawn that also on the assurance of the OPs that they will refund the price of the handset, but they failed. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties.   

 

2]       The OPs have filed reply and while admitting the sale and repair of the handset in question, stated that the mobile was duly repaired, but the complainant has not collected the same, though Opposite Party No.2 has called the complainant a number of times.  It is also stated that the mobile is not having any defect and the complainant is not coming forward to collect the mobile and is adamant on refund of the price of mobile. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by OPs.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       After going through the submissions made by the complainant qua the malfunctioning of the handset in question purchased by him on 17.5.2016, we are of the view that the complainant be refunded the price of the handset in question i.e.  Rs.4999/-.  It is the defence taken by the Opposite Parties that the mobile handset in question is functioning well and the complainant himself is not collecting it from the Service Centre of the Opposite Parties; to corroborate  they  have  not brought on record any report of their Engineer reporting that the mobile handset is not suffering from any defect and is functioning well.  Since, the allegations of the complainant are well supported by his duly sworn affidavit deposing that the mobile handset did not function well after its first repair, which admittedly was done by the OPs. The Invoice, dated 17.5.2016 reveals that the cost of the said mobile handset in question is Rs.4990/- and for such small amount, we cannot expect from a prudent person to visit time and again to the Service Centre of the Opposite Parties in order to get his set rectified.  Therefore, we deem it proper, in the interest of justice, to direct the OPs to refund the price of the mobile handset to the complainant.

 

7]       In view of the above findings, we are of the view that the complaint deserves to be partly allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed against Opposite Parties with directions to refund Rs.4999/- being the price of the mobile handset in question, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on said amount mentioned from the date of filing this complaint till realization. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, there is no order as to cost and compensation.

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10^th August, 2017                                               Sd/-

                                                                                     

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER