DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.232 of 2015
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 13-08-2015
DATE OF ORDER: 06-09-2016
Bharat Bhushan aged 38 years son of Sh. Balwant rai, resident of Shop No. 161, 1st Floor Rama Market, Ghanta Ghar Bhiwani (Haryana).
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Vikash Mobile Services, Near Niwada Ki Paras, Lohar Bazar Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani (Haryana) through its authorized person.
- Intex GMG Communication, Radhika Complex, Hansi Gate Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani (Haryana) through its authorized person.
- Intex Technology (India) Ltd., D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 through its Executive Manager/authorized person.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present:- Sh. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate for complainant.
OPs exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 12.11.2014 he had purchased Intex Mobile, Model YUVI PRO, IMEI No. 91136605125376 for a sum of Rs. 1450/- from OP no. 1 with one year warranty. It is alleged that after a few time the said mobile has not worked properly and complainant visited the OP no. 1 for the error of the mobile. It is alleged that the OP no. 1 was time and again intimated regarding the defect of mobile phone, but he has failed to rectify the manufacturing defect and the mobile phone in question is lying defective for the last 3 months. It is alleged that OP no. 1 with the complainant and flatly refused to replace the mobile phone and also failed to refund the cost of mobile phone. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer mental agony, mental pain and physical harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint & prayed for change the defective mobile set with new one alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.
2. OPs have failed to come present. Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.10.2015.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. We have heard the complainant in person. The complainant argued this case himself because the Local Bar has suspended the work.
5. The complainant had purchased the mobile handset vide bill dated 12.11.2014 for Rs. 1450/- Annexure C-1. The complainant deposited his mobile handset with OP no. 2 vide job sheet dated 09.06.2015 Annexure C-3 and then again on 05.08.2015 vide job sheet Annexure C-2 for the problems mentioned in the said job sheet. The mobile handset of the complainant was in working condition for about 8 months. The complainant has stated that the said mobile handset since 05.08.2015 is lying with OP no. 2, the service centre of the company. The Ops did not bother to appear and contest the case. Admittedly, the complainant has used the mobile handset for about 8 months.
6. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to pay Rs. 1000/- to the complainant against the defective mobile handset as full and final payment. This order be complied with by the Ops within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:06-09-2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member Member
