BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 638 of 2015
Date of Institution: 26.10.2015
Date of Decision: 09.06.2016
Mr.Parmit Singh son of Sh.Harjit Singh, resident of 791/4, Gali Peepeyan Wali, katra Karam Singh, Amritsar, age 30 years.
Complainant
Versus
- Vishal Telecom, Dilawari Street, Putlighar, Amritsar through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Principle Officer.
- Perfect Mobile Repair Centre, Simran Plaza, Queens Road, Amritsar through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Principle Officer.
- Intex Technologies India Limited, D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi, through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Principle Officer.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: Exparte.
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sh.Parmit Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he purchased a Mobile Set from Opposite Party No.1 being manufactured by Opposite Party No.3 and Opposite Party No.2 being the service/ warranty provider, vide invoice No. 737 dated 2.10.2014 for Rs.9,500/- having warranty of one year. The complainant is a ‘consumer’ as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. Mobile Set in dispute was having inherent/ manufacturing defects from the very first day of its purchase and was not giving the proper service and was having the network loosing and hanging problem with low battery. The complaints to the said effect were made to Opposite Party No.3 and accordingly, Opposite Party No.2 changed the components in the first month of purchase. Mobile Set in dispute after few months started giving the same trouble of hanging and network loosing and the complainant made the complaint to Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and they tried to rectify the defects, but could’t set right the Mobile Set in dispute and Opposite Party No.2 has kept the Mobile Set in dispute with it since 15.7.2015 vide job sheet No.5071359890065 and given a ordinary defective stand-by Mobile Set in dispute, which again became defective on 2.9.2015. Opposite Party No.2 has not returned the Mobile Set of the complainant so far inspite of repeated requests and visits. The complainant has prayed for the following reliefs through the instant complaint.
a) Opposite Parties be directed to rectify the defects of the Mobile Set in dispute and in case, it is not repairable, then replace the same with same make and model or in alternative, refund Rs.9,500/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum thereon from the date of payment till its realization.
b) Opposite Parties be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.
c) Opposite Parties be directed to pay the adequate cost of the present complaint.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, inspite of due service, none put in appearance on behalf of the Opposite Parties and as such, the Opposite Parties were ordered to be proceeded against exparte.
3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of job sheet Ex.C3 and closed the exparte evidence.
4. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
5. From the perusal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant purchased Mobile Set from Opposite Party No.1 manufactured by Opposite Party No.3 on 2.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.9,500/- vide invoice No. 737, copy whereof is Ex.C2 on the record. As such, the complainant has proved himself to be a ‘consumer’ under Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No.2 happened to be a service provider. There is evidence on record that Mobile Set in dispute was having manufacturing defect from very first date of its purchase and it had network loosing and hanging problem with low battery. The complainant used to make complaints to Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, but to no affect. Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 took Mobile Set in dispute in their custody since 15.7.2015 for repair purposes, but they have failed to hand over the same to the complainant till date. Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 handed over a standby Mobile Set to the complainant on 2.9.2015 vide job sheet, but the same also did not give any satisfactory service to the complainant, copy of job sheet accounts for Ex.C3. The evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as the Opposite Parties, despite due service, did not opt to appear and contest the proceedings. In this way, the Opposite Parties have impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Parties have no defence to defend the complaint. The very fact that the Opposite Parties have been retaining the Mobile Set of the complainant for repair purposes ever since 15.7.2015 and they have failed to return the same till date, clearly shows that Mobile Set in dispute was suffering from some technical/ manufacturing defects and was beyond the scope of repairs. Consequently, the instant complaint succeeds and the Opposite Parties are directed to refund the sale price of the Mobile Set in dispute i.e. Rs.9,500/-, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing of the order until full and final payment. All the Opposite Parties are held liable jointly, severally & co-extensively to comply with the order. The complaint stands allowed exparte accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 09.06.2016. (S.S.Panesar) President
(Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
hrg
